As part of a larger grammar I'm trying to define rules to describe "method calls". I ran into trouble and I think I reduced the problem to my lack of knowledge regarding Terminals.
Here's a simple grammar describing my problem:
grammar org.xtext.example.mydsl.MyDsl with org.eclipse.xtext.common.Terminals
generate myDsl "http://www.xtext.org/example/mydsl/MyDsl"
Model: methodCalls+=MethodCall*;
MethodCall: 'call' ID '.' ID;
With that grammar I can write something like
call variable.method
call foo.bar
Now I would like to allow wildcard characters in the method name. I changed the MethodCall-rule to
MethodCall: 'call' ID '.' WildcardName;
and to the end of the grammar I added
terminal WildcardName : ('a'..'z'|'A'..'Z'|'_'|'*'|'?') ('a'..'z'|'A'..'Z'|'_'|'0'..'9'|'*'|'?')*;
Trying
call variable.method
call foo.bar
again I got the error messages:
mismatched input 'foo' expecting RULE_ID
mismatched input 'variable' expecting RULE_ID
Why are 'foo' and 'variable' not being matched by Terminal ID? And more importantly, why does even adding the new Terminal without actually using it cause this error message?
the parsing is done in two steps: lexing and parsing. terminal rules are done in the lexing phase => at the places you expect an ID a WildcardName is recognized
=> you have to use a Datatype rule for this as well
WildcardName : (ID | '*')+;
Related
My simplified grammar is similar to the following:
parseExpression: expression EOF;
identifier: IDENT;
expression
: identifier
| identifier (+|-) identifier
;
When I try to parse an expression like abc +, a NoViableAlternativeException is thrown and ANTLR will recover by producing a ExpressionContext containing ErrorNode children.
I would like to recover from such a syntax error by ignoring the + token or by generating a synthetic token that is valid based on the expected tokens.
The error reporting will still be done through other means, but I need a valid parse tree that I can walk.
Any idea how this can be done in a custom ANTLRErrorListener or ANTLRErrorStrategy? I was trying to understand what happens in these classes when errors are encountered, but I couldn't figure out so far how to do this recovery.
I am looking for a solution to a simple problem.
The example :
SELECT date, date(date)
FROM date;
This is a rather stupid example where a table, its column, and a function all have the name "date".
The snippet of my grammar (very simplified) :
simple_select
: SELECT selected_element (',' selected_element) FROM from_element ';'
;
selected_element
: function
| REGULAR_WORD
;
function
: REGULAR_WORD '(' function_argument ')'
;
function_argument
: REGULAR_WORD
;
from_element
: REGULAR_WORD
;
DATE: D A T E;
FROM: F R O M;
SELECT: S E L E C T;
REGULAR_WORD
: (SIMPLE_LETTER) (SIMPLE_LETTER | '0'..'9')*
;
fragment SIMPLE_LETTER
: 'a'..'z'
| 'A'..'Z'
;
DATE is a keyword (it is used somewhere else in the grammar).
If I want it to be recognised by my grammar as a normal word, here are my solutions :
1) I add it everywhere I used REGULAR_WORD, next to it.
Example :
selected_element
: function
| REGULAR_WORD
| DATE
;
=> I don't want this solution. I don't have only "DATE" as a keyword, and I have many rules using REGULAR_WORD, so I would need to add a list of many (50+) keywords like DATE to many (20+) parser rules : it would be absolutely ugly.
PROS: make a clean tree
CONS: make a dirty grammar
2) I use a parser rule in between to get all those keywords, and then, I replace every occurrence of REGULAR_WORD by that parser rule.
Example :
word
: REGULAR_WORD
| DATE
;
selected_element
: function
| word
;
=> I do not want this solution either, as it adds one more parser rule in the tree and polluting the informations (I do not want to know that "date" is a word, I want to know that it's a selected_element, a function, a function_argument or a from_element ...
PROS: make a clean grammar
CONS: make a dirty tree
Either way, I have a dirty tree or a dirty grammar. Isn't there a way to have both clean ?
I looked for aliases, parser fragment equivalent, but it doesn't seem like ANTLR4 has any ?
Thank you, have a nice day !
There are four different grammars for SQL dialects in the Antlr4 grammar repository and all four of them use your second strategy. So it seems like there is a consensus among Antlr4 sql grammar writers. I don't believe there is a better solution given the design of the Antlr4 lexer.
As you say, that leads to a bit of noise in the full parse tree, but the relevant non-terminal (function, selected_element, etc.) is certainly present and it does not seem to me to be very difficult to collapse the unit productions out of the parse tree.
As I understand it, when Antlr4 was being designed, a decision was made to only automatically produce full parse trees, because the design of condensed ("abstract") syntax trees is too idiosyncratic to fit into a grammar DSL. So if you find an AST more convenient, you have the responsibility to generate one yourself. That's generally straight-forward although it involves a lot of boilerplate.
Other parser generators do have mechanisms which can handle "semireserved keywords". In particular, the Lemon parser generator, which is part of the Sqlite project, includes a %fallback declaration which allows you to specify that one or more tokens should be automatically reclassified in a context in which no grammar rule allows them to be used. Unfortunately, Lemon does not generate Java parsers.
Another similar option would be to use a parser generator which supports "scannerless" parsing. Such parsers typically use algorithms like Earley/GLL/GLR, capable of parsing arbitrary CFGs, to get around the need for more lookahead than can conveniently be supported in fixed-lookahead algorithms such as LALR(1).
This is the socalled keywords-as-identifiers problem and has been discussed many times before. For instance I asked a similar question already 6 years ago in the ANTLR mailing list. But also here at Stackoverflow there are questions touching this area, for instance Trying to use keywords as identifiers in ANTLR4; not working.
Terence Parr wrote a wiki article for ANTLR3 in 2008 that shortly describes 2 possible solutions:
This grammar allows "if if call call;" and "call if;".
grammar Pred;
prog: stat+ ;
stat: keyIF expr stat
| keyCALL ID ';'
| ';'
;
expr: ID
;
keyIF : {input.LT(1).getText().equals("if")}? ID ;
keyCALL : {input.LT(1).getText().equals("call")}? ID ;
ID : 'a'..'z'+ ;
WS : (' '|'\n')+ {$channel=HIDDEN;} ;
You can make those semantic predicates more efficient by intern'ing those strings so that you can do integer comparisons instead of string compares.
The other alternative is to do something like this
identifier : KEY1 | KEY2 | ... | ID ;
which is a set comparison and should be faster.
Normally, as #rici already mentioned, people prefer the solution where you keep all keywords in an own rule and add that to your normal identifier rule (where such a keyword is allowed).
The other solution in the wiki can be generalized for any keyword, by using a lookup table/list in an action in the ID lexer rule, which is used to check if a given string is a keyword. This solution is not only slower, but also sacrifies clarity in your parser grammar, since you can no longer use keyword tokens in your parser rules.
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 am aware what implicit token definition error in parser means, but am having difficulty getting rid of it. (v4)
stripped down statements:
enum_decl : GTYPE_ENUM ID LSQUARE STRING STRING* RSQUARE SEMI ;
string_decl: GTYPE_STRING ID (COMMA ID)* SEMI ;
In string_decl, that error appears on SEMI
In enum_decl the same error is on RSQUARE
GTYPE_ENUM, ID, etc. all are defined / accepted correctly, in the Lexer section.
Have you type in that little tiny section trying to find a small test case that doesn't work? Without a grammar to test there's nothing we can do. Is either a bug or a problem with your grammar.
I have a simple grammar that works for the most part, but at one place it reports error and I think it shouldn't, because it can be resolved using backtracking.
Here is the portion that is problematic.
command: object message_chain;
object: ID;
message_chain: unary_message_chain keyword_message?
| binary_message_chain keyword_message?
| keyword_message;
unary_message_chain: unary_message+;
binary_message_chain: binary_message+;
unary_message: ID;
binary_message: BINARY_OPERATOR object;
keyword_message: (ID ':' object)+;
This is simplified version, object is more complex (it can be result of other command, raw value and so on, but that part works fine). Problem is in message_chain, in first alternative. For input like obj unary1 unary2 it works fine, but for intput like obj unary1 unary2 keyword1:obj2 is trys to match keyword1 as unary message and fails when it reaches :. I would think that it this situation parser would backtrack and figure that there is : and recognize that that is keyword message.
If I make keyword message non-optional it works fine, but I need keyword message to be optional.
Parser finds keyword message if it is in second alternative (binary_message) and third alternative (just keyword_message). So something like this gives good results: 1 + 2 + 3 Keyword1:Value
What am I missing? Backtracking is set to true in options and it works fine in other cases in the same grammar.
Thanks.
This is not really a case for PEG-style backtracking, because upon failure that returns to decision points in uncompleted derivations only. For input obj unary1 unary2 keyword1:obj2, with a single token lookahead, keyword1 could be consumed by unary_message_chain. The failure may not occur before keyword_message, and next to be tried would be the second alternative of message_chain, i.e. binary_message_chain, thus missing the correct parse.
However as this grammar is LL(2), it should be possible to extend lookahead to avoid consuming keyword1 from within unary_message_chain. Have you tried explicitly setting k=2, without backtracking?