I am trying to make a simple scanner using Flex. In the declarations section, I am trying to use the {-} operator to exclude reserved words from an id, but I can't get it to work. Every example I have found uses the {+} and {-} operators as in the following code:
[a-z]{-}[d]
However, I am trying to use these operators as in the following code, but I always get errors:
invalid_id "char"|"else"|"if"|"class"|"new"|"return"|"void"|"while"|"int"
all_ids [a-zA-Z_][a-zA-Z0-9_]*
id {all_ids}{-}{invalid_id}
Is there any way to make it work? Can these operators be used without square brackets?
The {-} and {+} operators only work on character classes like [a-z], not on full regular expressions or strings. flex does not have support for a more general {-} operator. The more general version of {+} of course is |. Your particular problem is in general solved by the fact that if two patterns match the same string, then the first pattern will be used. So changing your specification to the following will actually exclude all keywords from the IDs.
%%
"char"|"else"|"if"|"class"|"new"|"return"|"void"|"while"|"int" { return KEYWORD; }
[a-zA-Z_][a-zA-Z0-9_]* { return ID; }
%%
Related
I'm defining the syntax of the Move IR. The test suite for this language includes various annotations to enable testing. I need to treat comments of this form specially:
//! new-transaction
// check: "Keep(ABORTED { code: 123,"
This file is an example arithmetic_operators_u8.mvir.
So far, I've got this working by disallowing ordinary single-line comments.
module MOVE-ANNOTATION-SYNTAX-CONCRETE
imports INT-SYNTAX
syntax #Layout ::= r"([\\ \\n\\r\\t])" // Whitespace
syntax Annotation ::= "//!" "new-transaction" [klabel(NewTransaction), symbol]
syntax Check ::= "//" "check:" "\"Keep(ABORTED { code:" Int ",\"" [klabel(CheckCode), symbol]
endmodule
module MOVE-ANNOTATION-SYNTAX-ABSTRACT
imports INT-SYNTAX
syntax Annotation ::= "#NewTransaction" [klabel(NewTransaction), symbol]
syntax Check ::= #CheckCode(Int) [klabel(CheckCode), symbol]
endmodule
I'd like to also be able to use ordinary comments.
As a first step, I was able to change the Layout to allow commits only if the begin with a ! using r"(\\/\\/[^!][^\\n\\r]*)"
I'd like to exclude all comments that start with either //! or // check: from comments. What's a good way of implementing this?
Where can I find documentation for the regular expression language that K uses?
K uses flex for its scanner, and thus for its regular expression language. As a result, you can find documentation on its regular expression language here.
You want a regular expression that expresses that comments can't start with ! or check:, but flex doesn't support negative lookahead or not patterns, so you will have to exhaustively enumerate all the cases of comments that don't start with those sequence of characters. It's a bit tedious, sadly.
For reference, here is a (simplified) regular expression drawn from the syntax of C that represents all pragmas that don't start with STDC. It should give you an idea of how to proceed:
#pragma([:space:]*)([^S].*|S|S[^T].*|ST|ST[^D].*|STD|STD[^C].*|STDC[_a-zA-Z0-9].*)?$
I'm writing a JAVA software to parse SQL queries. In order to do so I'm using ANTLR with presto.g4.
The code I'm currently using is pretty standard:
PrestoLexer lexer = new PrestoLexer(
new CaseChangingCharStream(CharStreams.fromString(query), true));
lexer.removeErrorListeners();
lexer.addErrorListener(errorListener);
CommonTokenStream tokens = new CommonTokenStream(lexer);
PrestoParser parser = new PrestoParser(tokens);
I wonder whether it's possible to pass a parameter to the lexer so the lexing will be different depends on that parameter?
update:
I've used #Mike's suggestion below and my lexer now inherits from the built-in lexer and added a predicate function. My issue is now pure grammar.
This is my string definition:
STRING
: '\'' ( '\\' .
| '\\\\' . {HelperUtils.isNeedSpecialEscaping(this)}? // match \ followed by any char
| ~[\\'] // match anything other than \ and '
| '\'\'' // match ''
)*
'\''
;
I sometimes have a query with weird escaping for which the predicate returns true. For example:
select
table1(replace(replace(some_col,'\\'',''),'\"' ,'')) as features
from table1
And when I try to parse it I'm getting:
'\'',''),'
As a single string.
how can I handle this one?
I don't know what you need the parameter for, but you mentioned SQL, so let me present a solution I used since years: predicates.
In MySQL (which is the dialect I work with) the syntax differs depending on the MySQL version number. So in my grammar I use semantic predicates to switch off and on language parts that belong to a specific version. The approach is simple:
test:
{serverVersion < 80014}? ADMIN_SYMBOL
| ONLY_SYMBOL
;
The ADMIN keyword is only acceptable for version < 8.0.14 (just an example, not true in reality), while the ONLY keyword is a possible alternative in any version.
The variable serverVersion is a member of a base class from which I derive my parser. That can be specified by:
options {
superClass = MySQLBaseRecognizer;
tokenVocab = MySQLLexer;
}
The lexer also is derived from that class, so the version number is available in both lexer and parser (in addition to other important settings like the SQL mode). With this approach you can also implement more complex functions for predicates, that need additional processing.
You can find the full code + grammars at the MySQL Workbench Github repository.
I wonder whether it's possible to pass a parameter to the lexer so the lexing will be different depends on that parameter?
No, the lexer works independently from the parser. You cannot direct the lexer while parsing.
Using Regular Extractor in JMeter, I need to get the value of "fullBkupUNIXTime" from the below response,
{"fullBackupTimeString":["Mon 10 Apr 2017 14:14:36"],"fullBkupUNIXTime":["1491833676"],"fullBackupDirName":["10_04_2017_0636"]}
I tried with Ref Name as time and
Regular Expression: "fullBkupUNIXTime": "([0-9])" and "(.+?)"
and pass them as input for 2nd request ${time}
The above 2 two doesn't work out for me.
Please Help me out of this.
First of all: why not just use this thing?
Then, if you firm with your RegExp adventure to get happen.
First expression is not going to work because you've defined it to match exactly one [0-9] charcter.
Add the appropriate repetition character, like "fullBkupUNIXTime": "([0-9]+)".
And basically it make sense to tell the engine to stop at first narrowest match too: "fullBkupUNIXTime": "([0-9]+?)"
Next, make sure you're handling space chars between key and value and colon mark properly. Better mark them explicitly, if any, with \s
And last but not least: make sure you're properly handle multiple lines (if appropriate, of course). Add the (?m) modifier to your expression.
And/or (?im) to be not case-sensitive, in addition.
[ is a reserve character in regex, you need to escape it, in your case use:
Regular Expression fullBkupUNIXTime":\["(\d+)
Template: $1$
Match No.: 1
I am new to bison, and have the misfortune of needing to write a parser for a language that may have what would otherwise be an operator within a variable name. For example, depending on context, the expression
FOO = BAR-BAZ
could be interpreted as either:
the variable "FOO" being assigned the value of the variable "BAR" minus the value of the variable "BAZ", OR
the variable "FOO" being assigned the value of the variable "BAR-BAZ"
Fortunately the language requires variable declarations ahead of time, so I can determine whether a given string is a valid variable via a function I've implemented:
bool isVariable(char* name);
that will return true if the given string is a valid variable name, and false otherwise.
How do I tell bison to attempt the second scenario above first, and only if (through use of isVariable()) that path fails, go back and try it as the first scenario above? I've read that you can have bison try multiple parsing paths and cull invalid ones when it encounters a YYERROR, so I've tried a set of rules similar to:
variable:
STRING { if(!isVariable($1)) YYERROR; }
;
expression:
expression '-' expression
| variable
;
but when given "BAR-BAZ" the parser tries it as a single variable and just stops completely when it hits the YYERROR instead of exploring the "BAR" - "BAZ" path as I expect. What am I doing wrong?
Edit:
I'm beginning to think that my flex rule for STRING might be the culprit:
((A-Z0-9][-A-Z0-9_///.]+)|([A-Z])) {yylval.sval = strdup(yytext); return STRING;}
In this case, if '-' appears in the middle of alphanumeric characters, the whole lot is treated as 1 STRING, without the possibility for subdivision by the parser (and therefore only one path explored). I suppose I could manually parse the STRING in the parser action, but it seems like there should be a better way. Perhaps flex could give back alternate token streams (one for the "BAR-BAZ" case and another for the "BAR"-"BAZ" case) that are diverted to different parser stacks for exploration? Is something like that possible?
It's not impossible to solve this problem within a bison-generated parser, but it's not easy, and the amount of hackery required might detract from the readability and verifiability of the grammar.
To be clear, GLR parsers are not fallback parsers. The GLR algorithm explores all possible parses in parallel, and rejects invalid ones as it goes. (The bison implementation requires that the parse converge to a single possible parse; the original GLR algorithm produces forest of parse trees.) Also, the GLR algorithm does not contemplate multiple lexical analyses.
If you want to solve this problem in the context of the parser, you'll probably need to introduce special handling for whitespace, or at least for - which are not surrounded by whitespace. Otherwise, you will not be able to distinguish between a - b (presumably always subtraction) and a-b (which might be the variable a-b if that variable were defined). Leaving aside that issue, you would be looking for something like this (but this won't work, as explained below):
expr : term
| expr '-' term
term : factor
| term '*' factor
factor: var
| '(' expr ')'
var : ident { if (!isVariable($1)) { /* reject this production */ } }
ident : WORD
| ident '-' WORD { $$ = concatenate($1, "-", $3); }
This won't work because the action associated with var : ident is not executed until after the parse has been disambiguated. So if the production is rejected, the parse fails, because the parser has already determined that the production is necessary. (Until the parser makes that determination, actions are deferred.)
Bison allows GLR grammars to use semantic predicates, which are executed immediately instead of being deferred. But that doesn't help, because semantic predicates cannot make use of computed semantic values (since the semantic value computations are still deferred when the semantic predicate is evaluated). You might think you could get around this by making the computation of the concatenated identifier (in the second ident production) a semantic predicate, but then you run into another limitation: semantic predicates do not themselves have semantic values.
Probably there is a hack which will get around this problem, but that might leave you with a different problem. Suppose that a, c, a-b and b-c are defined variables. Then, what is the meaning of a-b-c? Is it (a-b) - c or a - (b-c) or an error?
If you expect it to be an error, then there is no problem since the GLR parser will find both possible parses and bison-generated GLR parsers signal a syntax error if the parse is ambiguous. But then the question becomes: is a-b-c only an error if it is ambiguous? Or is it an error because you cannot use a subtraction operator without surround whitespace if its arguments are hyphenated variables? (So that a-b-c can only be resolved to (a - b) - c or to (a-b-c), regardless of whether a-b and b-c exist?) To enforce the latter requirement, you'll need yet more complication.
If, on the other hand, your language is expected to model a "fallback" approach, then the result should be (a-b) - c. But making that selection is not a simple merge procedure between two expr reductions, because of the possibility of a higher precedence * operator: d * a-b-c either resolves to (d * a-b) - c or (d * a) - b-c; in those two cases, the parse trees are radically different.
An alternative solution is to put the disambiguation of hyphenated variables into the scanner, instead of the parser. This leads to a much simpler and somewhat clearer definition, but it leads to a different problem: how do you tell the scanner when you don't want the semantic disambiguation to happen? For example, you don't want the scanner to insist on breaking up a variable name into segments when you the name occurs in a declaration.
Even though the semantic tie-in with the scanner is a bit ugly, I'd go with that approach in this case. A rough outline of a solution is as follows:
First, the grammar. Here I've added a simple declaration syntax, which may or may not have any resemblance to the one in your grammar. See notes below.
expr : term
| expr '-' term
term : factor
| term '*' factor
factor: VARIABLE
| '(' expr ')'
decl : { splitVariables(false); } "set" VARIABLE
{ splitVariables(true); } '=' expr ';'
{ addVariable($2); /* ... */ }
(See below for the semantics of splitVariables.)
Now, the lexer. Again, it's important to know what the intended result for a-b-c is; I'll outline two possible strategies. First, the fallback strategy, which can be implemented in flex:
int candidate_len = 0;
[[:alpha:]][[:alnum:]]*/"-"[[:alpha:]] { yymore();
candidate_len = yyleng;
BEGIN(HYPHENATED);
}
[[:alpha:]][[:alnum:]]* { yylval.id = strdup(yytext);
return WORD;
}
<HYPHENATED>"-"[[:alpha:]][[:alnum:]]*/"-"[[:alpha:]] {
yymore();
if (isVariable(yytext))
candidate_len = yyleng;
}
<HYPHENATED>"-"[[:alpha:]][[:alnum:]]* { if (!isVariable(yytext))
yyless(candidate_len);
yylval.id = strdup(yytext);
BEGIN(INITIAL);
return WORD;
}
That uses yymore and yyless to find the longest prefix sequence of hyphenated words which is a valid variable. (If there is no such prefix, it chooses the first word. An alternative would be to select the entire sequence if there is no such prefix.)
A similar alternative, which only allows the complete hyphenated sequence (in the case where that is a valid variable) or individual words. Again, we use yyless and yymore, but this time we don't bother checking intermediate prefixes and we use a second start condition for the case where we know we're not going to combine words:
int candidate_len = 0;
[[:alpha:]][[:alnum:]]*/"-"[[:alpha:]] { yymore();
candidate_len = yyleng;
BEGIN(HYPHENATED);
}
[[:alpha:]][[:alnum:]]* { yylval.id = strdup(yytext);
return WORD;
}
<HYPHENATED>("-"[[:alpha:]][[:alnum:]]*)*[[:alpha:]][[:alnum:]]* {
if (isVariable(yytext)) {
yylval.id = strdup(yytext);
BEGIN(INITIAL);
return WORD;
} else {
yyless(candidate_len);
yylval.id = strdup(yytext);
BEGIN(NO_COMBINE);
return WORD;
}
}
<NO_COMBINE>[[:alpha:]][[:alnum:]]* { yylval.id = strdup(yytext);
return WORD;
}
<NO_COMBINE>"-" { return '-'; }
<NO_COMBINE>.|\n { yyless(0); /* rescan */
BEGIN(INITIAL);
}
Both of the above solutions use isVariable to decide whether or not a hyphenated sequence is a valid variable. As mentioned earlier, there must be a way to turn off the check, for example in the case of a declaration. To accomplish this, we need to implement splitVariables(bool). The implementation is straightforward; it simply needs to set a flag visible to isVariable. If the flag is set to true, then isVariable always returns true without actually checking for the existence of the variable in the symbol table.
All of that assumes that the symbol table and the splitVariables flag are shared between the parser and the scanner. A naïve solution would make both of these variables globals; a cleaner solution would be to use a pure parser and lexer, and pass the symbol table structure (including the flag) from the main program into the parser, and from there (using %lex-param) into the lexer.
I am working with the example about Parse Tree Matching and XPath shown here. More specifically, I was trying to understand how the following code works:
// assume we are parsing Java
ParserRuleContext tree = parser.compilationUnit();
String xpath = "//blockStatement/*"; // get children of blockStatement
String treePattern = "int <Identifier> = <expression>;";
ParseTreePattern p =
parser.compileParseTreePattern(treePattern,
ExprParser.RULE_localVariableDeclarationStatement);
List<ParseTreeMatch> matches = p.findAll(tree, xpath);
System.out.println(matches);
What I wanted to ask is if we can have regular expressions inside the treePattern string?
For example, I want to write a pattern which identifies all the localVariableDeclarations inside a for loop.
I would like to be able to identify the following code:
for (Object o : list) {
int tempVariable=0;
if ( o.id ==12) {
System.out.println(t);
}
}
The way I have written the pattern (which works) to identify this code is as follows:
String pattern3 = " for ( <className1:type> <localName1:Identifier> : <listName1:expression> ) { <localVariables1:localVariableDeclarationStatement> "
+ "if (<parameter1:expression>.<identifier1:Identifier> == <value1:primary> ) <block1:statement> }";
However, if I have more than one local variables, the pattern doesn't match. I tried to add a '*' at the end as it would happen in the grammar file, but I get an
* invalid tag error.
<localVariables1:localVariableDeclarationStatement>*
Of course I can also add a pattern with two localVariableDeclarationStatement statements, but this again means that I have to create many different patterns for each number of local variables that I want to identify:
<localVariables1:localVariableDeclarationStatement> <localVariables2:localVariableDeclarationStatement> and identify the pattern with
At this time, we don't support repeated elements within the patterns. I thought about that but it essentially means making yet another parser generator whereas static patterns like that are fairly easy to match. It's possible to build one of these, as the last version of ANTLR had tree grammars where you could in fact specify the grammatical structure of subtrees. Until we decide what sort of enhancement to the patterns we can make, I suggest you get creative.
In your specific case, find all of the localVariableDeclarations within for loops as you are doing now and then use a small bit of code to walk that list to identify the contiguous sequences (they are all siblings) and the ones terminated by that particular IF pattern. Would that work?