In ANTLR4, it seems that predicates can only be placed at the front of sub-rules in order for them to cause the sub-rule to be skipped. In my grammar, some predicates depend on a token that appears near the end of the sub-rule, with one or more rule invocations in front of it. For example:
date :
{isYear(_input.LT(3).getText())}?
month day=INTEGER year=INTEGER { ... }
In this particular example, I know that month is always one single token, so it is always Token 3 that needs to be checked by isYear(). In general, though, I won't know the number of tokens making up a rule like month until runtime. Is there a way to get its token count?
There is no built-in way to get the length of the rule programmatically. You could use the documentation for ATNState in combination with the _ATN field in your parser to calculate all paths through a rule - if all paths through the rule contain the same number of tokens the you have calculated the exact number of tokens used by the rule.
Related
Antlr4 has always been a kind of love-hate relationship for me, but I am currently a bit perplexed. I have started creating a grammar to my best knowledge and then wanted to test it and it didnt work at all. I then reduced it a lot to just a bare minimum example and I managed to make it not work. This is my grammar:
grammar SwiftMtComponentFormat;
separator : ~ZERO EOF;
ZERO : '0';
In my understanding it should anything except a '0' and then expect the end of the file. I have been testing it with the single character input '1' which I had expected to work. However this is what happens:
If i change the ~ZEROto ZERO and change my input from 1 to 0 it actually perfectly matches... For some reason the simple negation does not seem to work. I am failing to understand what the reason here is...
In a parser rule ~ZERO matches any token that is not a ZERO token. The problem in your case is that ZERO is the only type of token that you defined at all, so any other input will lead to a token recognition error and not get to the parser at all. So if you enter the input 1, the lexer will discard the 1 with a token recognition error and the parser will only see an empty token stream.
To fix this, you can simply define a lexer rule OTHER that matches any character not matched by previous lexer rules:
OTHER: .;
Note that this definition has to go after the definition of ZERO - otherwise it would match 0 as well.
Now the input 1 will produce an OTHER token and ~ZERO will match that token. Of course, you could now replace ~ZERO with OTHER and it wouldn't change anything, but once you add additional tokens, ~ZERO will match those as well whereas OTHER would not.
I'm pretty sure this isn't possible, but I want to ask just in case.
I have the common ID token definition:
ID: LETTER (LETTER | DIG)*;
The problem is that in the grammar I need to parse, there are some instructions in which you have a single character as operand, like:
a + 4
but
ab + 4
is not possible.
So I can't write a rule like:
sum: (INT | LETTER) ('+' (INT | LETTER))*
Because the lexer will consider 'a' as an ID, due to the higher priority of ID. (And I can't change that priority because it wouldn't recognize single character IDs then)
So I can only use ID instead of LETTER in that rule. It's ugly because there shouldn't be an ID, just a single letter, and I will have to do a second syntactic analysis to check that.
I know that there's nothing to do about it, since the lexer doesn't understand about context. What I'm thinking that maybe there's already built-in ANTLR4 is some kind of way to check the token's length inside the rule. Something like:
sum: (INT | ID{length=1})...
I would also like to know if there are some kind of "token alias" so I can do:
SINGLE_CHAR is alias of => ID
In order to avoid writing "ID" in the rule, since that can be confusing.
PD: I'm not parsing a simple language like this one, this is just a little example. In reality, an ID could also be a string, there are other tokens which can only be a subset of letters, etc... So I think I will have to do that second analysis anyways after parsing the entry to check that syntactically is legal. I'm just curious if something like this exists.
Checking the size of an identifier is a semantic problem and should hence be handled in the semantic phase, which usually follows the parsing step. Parse your input with the usual ID rule and check in the constructed parse tree the size of the recognized ids (and act accordingly). Don't try to force this kind of decision into your grammar.
I tried to use ANTLR4 to identify a range notation like <1..100>, and here is my attempt:
#parser::members {
def evalRange(self, minnum, maxnum, num):
if minnum <= num <= maxnum:
return True
return False
}
range_1_100 : INT { self.evalRange(1, 100, $INT.int) }? ;
But it does not work for more than one range like:
some_rule : range_1_100 | range_200_300 ;
When I input a number (200), it just stops at the first rule:
200
line 3:0 rule range_1_100 failed predicate: { self.evalRange(1, 100, $INT.int) }?
(top (range_1_100 200))
It is not as I expected. How can I make the token match the next rule (range_200_300)?
Here's an excerpt from the docs (emphasis mine):
Predicates can appear anywhere within a parser rule just like actions can, but only those appearing on the left edge of alternatives can affect prediction (choosing between alternatives).
[...]
ANTLR's general decision-making strategy is to find all viable alternatives and then ignore the alternatives guarded with predicates that currently evaluate to false. (A viable alternative is one that matches the current input.) If more than one viable alternative remains, the parser chooses the alternative specified first in the decision.
Which basically means your predicate must be the first item in the alternation to be taken into account during the prediction phase.
Of course, you won't be able to use $INT as it wasn't matched yet at this point, but you can replace it with something like _input.LA(1) instead (lookahead of one token) - the exact syntax depends on your language target.
As a side note, I'd advise you to not validate the input through the grammar, it's easier and better to perform a separate validation pass after the parse. Let the grammar handle the syntax, not the semantics.
I'm having trouble understanding the rfc5545 concerning the the until and count. From what I understand, UNTIL and COUNT cannot be in the same recur rule according to this part of the RFC:
Value Name: RECUR
Purpose: This value type is used to identify properties that
contain a recurrence rule specification.
Formal Definition: The value type is defined by the following
notation:
recur = "FREQ"=freq *(
; either UNTIL or COUNT may appear in a 'recur',
; but UNTIL and COUNT MUST NOT occur in the same 'recur'
...
Further in the rfc, this is stated:
If multiple BYxxx rule parts are specified, then after evaluating the
specified FREQ and INTERVAL rule parts, the BYxxx rule parts are
applied to the current set of evaluated occurrences in the following
order: BYMONTH, BYWEEKNO, BYYEARDAY, BYMONTHDAY, BYDAY, BYHOUR,
BYMINUTE, BYSECOND and BYSETPOS; then COUNT and UNTIL are evaluated.
This last paragraph seems to imply that the COUNT and UNTIL can be in the same RRULE.
When I check libraries that implement rrule generator and parsing, there is no validation that make sure that the the COUNT and UNTIL are not in the same recur.
What is the general implementation that everyone usually do with this ? Should we ignore this validation and simply use the UNTIL parameter when there is both COUNT and UNTIL (or vice versa) ? What does the RFC mean exactly concerning the COUNT and UNTIL parameter ?
I don't think you can derive from the second paragraph that having both is valid.
There is only one definition of RECUR and the cardinality of its various components: the ABNF definition. This is where you should go to check the validity of your property.
The second paragraph simply describes the algorithm to use for doing RRULE expansion.
I'm currently attempting to write a UCUM parser using ANTLR4. My current approach has involved defining every valid unit and prefix as a token.
Here's a very small subset of the defined tokens. I could make a cut-down version of the grammar as an example, but it seems like it shouldn't be necessary to resolve this problem (or to point out that I'm going about this entirely the wrong way).
MILLI_OR_METRE: 'm' ;
OSMOLE: 'osm' ;
MONTH: 'mo' ;
SECOND: 's' ;
One of the standard testcases is mosm, from which the lexer should generate the token stream MILLI_OR_METRE OSMOLE. Unfortunately, because ANTLR preferentially matches longer tokens, it generates the token stream MONTH SECOND MILLI_OR_METRE, which then causes the parser to raise an error.
Is it possible to make an ANTLR4 lexer try to match using shorter tokens first? Adding lookahead-type rules to MONTH isn't a great solution, as there are all sorts of potential lexing conflicts that I'd need to take account of (for example mol being lexed as MONTH LITRE instead of MOLE and so on).
EDIT:
StefanA below is of course correct; this is a job for a parser capable of backtracking (eg. recursive descent, packrat, PEG and probably various others... Coco/R is one reasonable package to do this). In an attempt to avoid adding a dependency on another parser generator (or moving other bits of the project from ANTLR to this new generator) I've hacked my way around the problem like this:
MONTH: 'mo' { _input.La(1) != 's' && _input.La(1) != 'l' && _input.La(1) != '_' }? ;
// (note: this is a C# project; java would use _input.LA instead)
but this isn't really a very extensible or maintainable solution, and like as not will have introduced other subtle issues I've not come across yet.
Your problem does not require smaller tokens to be preferred (In this case MONTH would never be matched). You need a backtracking behaviour dependent on the text being matched or not. Right?
ANTLR separates tokenization and parsing strictly. Consequently every solution to your problem will seem like a hack.
However other parser generators are specialized on problems like yours. Packrat Parsers (PEG) are backtracking and allow tokenization on the fly. Try out parboiled for this purpose.
Appears that the question is not being framed correctly.
I'm currently attempting to write a UCUM parser using ANTLR4. My current approach has involved defining every valid unit and prefix as a token.
But, according to the UCUM:
The expression syntax of The Unified Code for Units of Measure generates an infinite number of codes with the consequence that it is impossible to compile a table of all valid units.
The most to expect from the lexer is an unambiguous identification of the measurement string without regard to its semantic value. Similarly, a parser alone will be unable to validly select between unit sequences like MONTH LITRE and MOLE - both could reasonably apply to a leak rate - unless the problem space is statically constrained in the parser definition.
A heuristic, structural (explicitly identifying the problem space) or contextual (considering the relative nature of other units in the problem space), is most likely required to select the correct unit interpretation.
The best tool to use is the one that puts you in the best position to implement the heuristics necessary to disambiguate the unit strings. Antlr could do it using parse-tree walkers. Whether that is the appropriate approach requires further analysis.