How to use similar lexers - antlr

Question

I have the following grammar:
cmds
: cmd+
;
cmd
: include_cmd | other_cmd
;
include_cmd
: INCLUDE DOUBLE_QUOTE FILE_NAME DOUBLE_QUOTE
;
other_cmd
: CMD_NAME ARG+
;
INCLUDE
: '#include'
;
DOUBLE_QUOTE
: '"'
;
CMD_NAME
: ('a'..'z')*
;
ARG
: ('a'..'z' | 'A'..'Z' | '0'..'9' | '_')+
;
FILE_NAME
: ('a'..'z' | 'A'..'Z' | '0'..'9' | '_' | '.')+
;
So the difference between CMD_NAME, ARG and FILE_NAME is not large, CMD_NAME must be lower case letters, ARG can have upper case letter and "_" and FILE_NAME yet can have ".".
But this has a problem, when I test the rule with - #include "abc", 'abc' is interpreted as CMD_NAME instead of FILE_NAME, I think it is because CMD_NAME is before FILE_NAME in the grammar file, this leads to parsing error.
Do I have to rely on such technique as predict to deal with this? Is there a pure EBNF solution other than relying on host programming language?
Thanks.

Answer 1

But this has a problem, when I test the rule with - #include "abc", 'abc' is interpreted as CMD_NAME instead of FILE_NAME, I think it is because CMD_NAME is before FILE_NAME in the grammar file, this leads to parsing error.
The set of all valid CMD_NAMEs intersects with the set of all valid FILE_NAMEs. Input abc qualifies as both. The lexer matches the input with the first rule listed (as you suspected) because it's the first one matched.
Do I have to rely on such technique as [predicate] to deal with this? Is there a pure EBNF solution other than relying on host programming language?
It depends on what you're willing accept in your grammar. Consider changing your include_cmd rule to something more conventional, like this:
include_cmd : INCLUDE STRING;
STRING
: '"' ~('"'|'\r'|'\n')* '"' {String text = getText(); setText(text.substring(1, text.length() - 1));}
;
Now input #include "abc" turns into tokens [INCLUDE : #include] [STRING : abc].
I don't think the grammar should be responsible for determining whether a file name is valid or not: a valid file name doesn't imply a valid file, and the grammar has to understand OS file naming conventions (valid characters, paths, etc) that probably have no bearing on the grammar itself. I think you'll be fine if you're willing to drop rule FILE_NAME for something like the rules the above.
Also worth noting, your CMD_NAME rule matches zero-length input. Consider changing ('a'..'z')* to ('a'..'z')+ unless a CMD_NAME really can be empty.
Keep in mind, too, that you'll have the same problem with ARG that you did with FILE_NAME. It's listed after CMD_NAME, so any input that qualifies for both rules (like abc again) will hit CMD_NAME. Consider breaking these rules up into more conventional ones like so:
other_cmd : ID (ID | NUMBER)+ SEMI; //instead of CMD_NAME ARG+
ID : ('a'..'z'|'A'..'Z'|'_')+; //instead of CMD_NAME, "id" part of ARG
NUMBER : ('0'..'9')+; //"number" part of ARG
SEMI : ';';
I added rule SEMI to mark the end of a command. Otherwise the parser won't know if input a b c d is supposed to be one command with three arguments (a(b,c,d)) or two commands with one argument each (a(b), c(d)).