I have created the following grammar: I would like some idea how to build an interpreter that returns a tree in java, which I can later use for printing in the screen, Im bit stack on how to start on it.
grammar myDSL;
options {
language = Java;
}
#header {
package DSL;
}
#lexer::header {
package DSL;
}
program
: IDENT '={' components* '}'
;
components
: IDENT '=('(shape)(shape|connectors)* ')'
;
shape
: 'Box' '(' (INTEGER ','?)* ')'
| 'Cylinder' '(' (INTEGER ','?)* ')'
| 'Sphere' '(' (INTEGER ','?)* ')'
;
connectors
: type '(' (INTEGER ','?)* ')'
;
type
: 'MG'
| 'EL'
;
IDENT: ('a'..'z' | 'A'..'Z')('a'..'z' | 'A'..'Z' | '0'..'0')*;
INTEGER: '0'..'9'+;
// This if for the empty spaces between tokens and avoids them in the parser
WS: (' ' | '\t' | '\n' | '\r' | '\f')+ {$channel=HIDDEN;};
COMMENT: '//' .* ('\n' | '\r') {$channel=HIDDEN;};
A couple of remarks:
There's no need to set the language for Java, which is the default target language. So you can remove this:
options {
language = Java;
}
Your IDENT contains an error:
IDENT: ('a'..'z' | 'A'..'Z')('a'..'z' | 'A'..'Z' | '0'..'0')*;
the '0'..'0') should most probably be '0'..'9').
The sub rule (INTEGER ','?)* also matches source like 1 2 3 4 (no comma's at all!). Perhaps you meant to do: (INTEGER (',' INTEGER)*)?
Now, as to your question: how to let ANTLR construct a proper AST? This can be done by adding output = AST; in your options block:
options {
//language = Java;
output = AST;
}
And then either adding the "tree operators" ^ and ! in your parser rules, or by using tree rewrite rules: rule: a b c -> ^(c b a).
The "tree operator" ^ is used to define the root of the (sub) tree and ! is used to exclude a token from the (sub) tree.
Rewrite rules have ^( /* tokens here */ ) where the first token (right after ^() is the root of the (sub) tree, and all following tokens are child nodes of the root.
An example might be in order. Let's take your first rule:
program
: IDENT '={' components* '}'
;
and you want to let IDENT be the root, components* the children and you want to exclude ={ and } from the tree. You can do that by doing:
program
: IDENT^ '={'! components* '}'!
;
or by doing:
program
: IDENT '={' components* '}' -> ^(IDENT components*)
;
Related
I cannot seem to figure out what antlr is doing here in this grammar. I have a grammar that should match an input like:
i,j : bool;
setvar : set<bool>;
i > 5;
j < 10;
But I keep getting an error telling me that "line 3:13 mismatched input '<' expecting '<'". This tells me there is some ambiguity in the lexer, but I only use '<' in a single token.
Here is the grammar:
//// Parser Rules
grammar MLTL1;
start: block*;
block: var_list ';'
| expr ';'
;
var_list: IDENTIFIER (',' IDENTIFIER)* ':' type ;
type: BASE_TYPE
| KW_SET REL_LT BASE_TYPE REL_GT
;
expr: expr REL_OP expr
| '(' expr ')'
| IDENTIFIER
| INT
;
//// Lexical Spec
// Types
BASE_TYPE: 'bool'
| 'int'
| 'float'
;
// Keywords
KW_SET: 'set' ;
// Op groups for precedence
REL_OP: REL_EQ | REL_NEQ | REL_GT | REL_LT
| REL_GTE | REL_LTE ;
// Relational ops
REL_EQ: '==' ;
REL_NEQ: '!=' ;
REL_GT: '>' ;
REL_LT: '<' ;
REL_GTE: '>=' ;
REL_LTE: '<=' ;
IDENTIFIER
: LETTER (LETTER | DIGIT)*
;
INT
: SIGN? NONZERODIGIT DIGIT*
| '0'
;
fragment
SIGN
: [+-]
;
fragment
DIGIT
: [0-9]
;
fragment
NONZERODIGIT
: [1-9]
;
fragment
LETTER
: [a-zA-Z_]
;
COMMENT : '#' ~[\r\n]* -> skip;
WS : [ \t\r\n]+ -> channel(HIDDEN);
I tested the grammar to see what tokens it is generating for the test input above using this python:
from antlr4 import InputStream, CommonTokenStream
import MLTL1Lexer
import MLTL1Parser
input="""
i,j : bool;
setvar: set<bool>;
i > 5;
j < 10;
"""
lexer = MLTL1Lexer.MLTL1Lexer(InputStream(input))
stream = CommonTokenStream(lexer)
stream.fill()
tokens = stream.getTokens(0,100)
for t in tokens:
print(str(t.type) + " " + t.text)
parser = MLTL1Parser.MLTL1Parser(stream)
parse_tree = parser.start()
print(parse_tree.toStringTree(recog=parser))
And noticed that both '>' and '<' were assigned the same token value despite being two different tokens. Am I missing something here?
(There may be more than just these two instances, but...)
Change REL_OP and BASE_TYPE to parser rules (i.e. make them lowercase.
As you've used them, you're turning many of your intended Lexer rules, effectively into fragments.
I't important to understand that tokens are the "atoms" you have in your grammar, when you combine several of them into another Lexer rule, you just make that the token type.
(If you used grun to dump the tokens you would have seen them identified as REL_OP tokens.
With the changes below, your sample input works just fine.
grammar MLTL1
;
start: block*;
block: var_list ';' | expr ';';
var_list: IDENTIFIER (',' IDENTIFIER)* ':' type;
type: baseType | KW_SET REL_LT baseType REL_GT;
expr: expr rel_op expr | '(' expr ')' | IDENTIFIER | INT;
//// Lexical Spec
// Types
baseType: 'bool' | 'int' | 'float';
// Keywords
KW_SET: 'set';
// Op groups for precedence
rel_op: REL_EQ | REL_NEQ | REL_GT | REL_LT | REL_GTE | REL_LTE;
// Relational ops
REL_EQ: '==';
REL_NEQ: '!=';
REL_GT: '>';
REL_LT: '<';
REL_GTE: '>=';
REL_LTE: '<=';
IDENTIFIER: LETTER (LETTER | DIGIT)*;
INT: SIGN? NONZERODIGIT DIGIT* | '0';
fragment SIGN: [+-];
fragment DIGIT: [0-9];
fragment NONZERODIGIT: [1-9];
fragment LETTER: [a-zA-Z_];
COMMENT: '#' ~[\r\n]* -> skip;
WS: [ \t\r\n]+ -> channel(HIDDEN);
My grammar is working, but I have a bunch of elements in the tree that are single element arrays, and I don't really understand why. I tried reading the information about visitors, but I'm pretty sure the "problem" is with the grammar and perhaps its verbosity. Does anything jump out here? Or perhaps I'm just visiting things incorrectly. In the example below I do not react to visitFnArgs or visitArgs, but just visitFunctionCall. Things like function arguments and statements seem to sometimes be wrapped in single element arrays.
grammar Txl;
root: program;
// High level language
program: stmt (NEWLINE stmt)* NEWLINE? EOF # Statement
;
stmt: require # Condition
| entry # CreateEntry
| assignment # Assign
;
require: REQUIRE valueExpression;
entry: (CREDIT | DEBIT) journal valueExpression (IF valueExpression)? (LPAREN 'id:' valueExpression RPAREN)?;
assignment: IDENT ASSIGN valueExpression;
journal: IDENT COLON IDENT;
valueExpression: expr # Expression;
expr: expr (MULT | DIV) expr # MulDiv
| expr (PLUS | MINUS) expr # AddSub
| expr MOD expr # Mod
| expr POW expr # Pow
| MINUS expr # Negative
| expr AND expr # And
| expr OR expr # Or
| NOT expr # Not
| expr EQ expr # Equality
| expr NEQ expr # Inequality
| expr (LTE | GTE) expr # CmpEqual
| expr (LT | GT) expr # Cmp
| expr QUESTION expr COLON expr # Ternary
| LPAREN expr RPAREN # Parens
| NUMBER # NumberLiteral
| IDENT LPAREN args RPAREN # FunctionCall
| IDENT # Identifier
| STRING_LITERAL # StringLiteral
;
fnArg: expr | journal;
args: (fnArg (',' fnArg)*)?;
// Reserved words
CREDIT: 'credit';
DEBIT: 'debit';
IF: 'if';
REQUIRE: 'require';
// Operators
MULT: '*';
DIV: '/';
MINUS: '-';
PLUS: '+';
POW: '^';
MOD: '%';
LPAREN: '(';
RPAREN: ')';
LBRACE: '[';
RBRACE: ']';
COMMA: ',';
EQ: '==';
NEQ: '!=';
GTE: '>=';
LTE: '<=';
GT: '>';
LT: '<';
ASSIGN: '=';
QUESTION: '?';
COLON: ':';
AND: 'and';
OR: 'or';
NOT: 'not';
HASH: '#';
NEWLINE : [\r\n];
WS: [ \t] + -> skip;
// Entities
NUMBER: ('0' .. '9') + ('.' ('0' .. '9') +)?;
IDENT: [a-zA-Z]+[0-9a-zA-Z]*;
EXTID: [a-zA-Z0-9-]+;
STRING_LITERAL : '"' (~('"' | '\\' | '\r' | '\n') | '\\' ('"' | '\\'))* '"';
This input:
require balance(assets:cash) + balance(assets:earnings) > AMT
Produces the following single element arrays:
SINGLE ELEMENT INSTRUCTION MathOperation (>)
SINGLE ELEMENT INSTRUCTION JournalReference { identifier: 'assets:cash' }
SINGLE ELEMENT INSTRUCTION JournalReference { identifier: 'assets:earnings' }
I wonder if partly my problem is I'm not visiting things properly. Here's my Math visitor:
visitMath(ctx) {
const visited = this.visitChildren(ctx);
return new MathOperation(
visited[0],
ctx.getChild(1).getText(),
visited[2],
);
}
But I assume the problem is in the thing that contains the math operation, which I think is visitRequire:
visitRequire(ctx) {
return new Condition(this.visitExpression(ctx.getChild(1)));
}
Or perhaps in visitValueExpression or visitCondition, which are not overridden in my visitor.
Really short answer: There's nothing wrong with single element arrays. If there was only one instance of a thing that could exist multiple times, then it has to be an array (or List), and that list will have only the one item, if that's how many there are.
Antlr won't "unwrap" a single item to not be in an array. (That would only be valid in untyped languages or languages that allow Union types, and would be a pain to use as you'd always have to check whether you had a "thing" or a list of "thing"s)
Any time the "same type of thing" can exist more than once when matching a rule, ANTLR will make that available as an Array/List of that type.
Eample:
journal: IDENT COLON IDENT;
has 2 IDENT tokens, so it'll be made accessible via the context as a List of those types
(in Java, I'm not positive which language you're using).
public List<TerminalNode> IDENT() { return getTokens(TxlParser.IDENT); }
Two of your examples are of "JournalReference" so this would explain getting a list (if you use the ctx.IDENT() or the ctx.getChild(n) methods).
If I change the Journal rule to be:
journal: j1=IDENT COLON j2=IDENT;
I've given names to each IDENT so I get individual accessors for them (in addition to the IDENT() accessor that returns a list:
public static class JournalContext extends ParserRuleContext {
public Token j1;
public Token j2;
public TerminalNode COLON() { return getToken(TxlParser.COLON, 0); }
public List<TerminalNode> IDENT() { return getTokens(TxlParser.IDENT); }
With the labels you can use cox.j1 or cox.j2 to get individual tokens. (of course you'd name them as appropriate to your use case).
since the FunctionCall alternative of the expr rule uses the args rule
args: (fnArg (',' fnArg)*)?;
and that rule can have more than one fnArg, the it will necessarily be a list of fnArgs in the context:
public static class ArgsContext extends ParserRuleContext {
public List<FnArgContext> fnArg() {
return getRuleContexts(FnArgContext.class);
}
There's really not much you can do (or should want to do to not have that in a List, there can be one or more of them.
Since non of the code you present shows where you're writing your output, its a bit difficult to be more specific than that.
Your visitMath(cox) example is also a bit perplexing as math is not a rule in your grammar, so it would not exist in the Visitor interface.
I would suggest taking a closer look at the *Context classes that are generated for you. They'll provide utility methods that will be much easy to use and read in the future than getChild(n). getChild(n) is obscure, in that you'll have to refer back to the rule and diligently count rule members to determine which child to get, and it is also VERY brittle, in that n will change with any modification to your grammar. (Maintainers, or future you, will appreciate using the utility methods instead.)
Im trying to skip/ignore the text outside a custom tag:
This text is a unique token to skip < ?compo \5+5\ ?> also this < ?compo \1+1\ ?>
I tried with the follow lexer:
TAG_OPEN : '<?compo ' -> pushMode(COMPOSER);
mode COMPOSER;
TAG_CLOSE : ' ?>' -> popMode;
NUMBER_DIGIT : '1'..'9';
ZERO : '0';
LOGICOP
: OR
| AND
;
COMPAREOP
: EQ
| NE
| GT
| GE
| LT
| LE
;
WS : ' ';
NEWLINE : ('\r\n'|'\n'|'\r');
TAB : ('\t');
...
and parser:
instructions
: (TAG_OPEN statement TAG_CLOSE)+?;
statement
: if_statement
| else
| else_if
| if_end
| operation_statement
| mnemonic
| comment
| transparent;
But it doesn't work (I test it by using the intelliJ tester on the rule "instructions")...
I have also add some skip rules outside the "COMPOSER" mode:
TEXT_SKIP : TAG_CLOSE .*? (TAG_OPEN | EOF) -> skip;
But i don't have any results...
Someone can help me?
EDIT:
I change "instructions" and now the parser tree is correctly builded for every instruction of every tag:
instructions : (.*? TAG_OPEN statement TAG_CLOSE .*?)+;
But i have a not recognized character error outside the the tags...
Below is a quick demo that worked for me.
Lexer grammar:
lexer grammar CompModeLexer;
TAG_OPEN
: '<?compo' -> pushMode(COMPOSER)
;
OTHER
: . -> skip
;
mode COMPOSER;
TAG_CLOSE
: '?>' -> popMode
;
OPAR
: '('
;
CPAR
: ')'
;
INT
: '0'
| [1-9] [0-9]*
;
LOGICOP
: 'AND'
| 'OR'
;
COMPAREOP
: [<>!] '='
| [<>=]
;
MULTOP
: [*/%]
;
ADDOP
: [+-]
;
SPACE
: [ \t\r\n\f] -> skip
;
Parser grammar:
parser grammar CompModeParser;
options {
tokenVocab=CompModeLexer;
}
parse
: tag* EOF
;
tag
: TAG_OPEN statement TAG_CLOSE
;
statement
: expr
;
expr
: '(' expr ')'
| expr MULTOP expr
| expr ADDOP expr
| expr COMPAREOP expr
| expr LOGICOP expr
| INT
;
A test with the input This text is a unique token to skip <?compo 5+5 ?> also this <?compo 1+1 ?> resulted in the following tree:
I found another solution (not elegant as the previous):
Create a generic TEXT token in the general context (so outside the tag's mode)
TEXT : ( ~[<] | '<' ~[?])+ -> skip;
Create a parser rule for handle a generic text
code
: TEXT
| (TEXT? instruction TEXT?)+;
Create a parser rule for handle an instruction
instruction
: TAG_OPEN statement TAG_CLOSE;
I've created a small grammar in ANTLR using python (a grammar that can accept either a list of numbers of a list of IDs), and yet when I input a string such as December 12 1965, ANTLR will run on the file and show me no errors with the following code (and all of the python code that I'm using is imbedded via the #main):
grammar ParserLang;
options {
language=Python;
}
#header {
import sys
import antlr3
from ParserLangLexer import ParserLangLexer
}
#main {
def main(argv, otherArg=None):
char_stream = antlr3.ANTLRInputStream(open(sys.argv[1],'r'))
lexer = ParserLangLexer(char_stream)
tokens = CommonTokenStream(lexer)
parser = ParserLangParser(tokens);
rule = parser.entry_rule()
}
program : idList EOF
| integerList EOF
;
idList : ID whitespace idList
| ID
;
integerList : INTEGER whitespace integerList
| INTEGER
;
whitespace : (WHITESPACE | COMMENT) +;
ID : LETTER (DIGIT | LETTER)*;
INTEGER : (NONZERO_DIGIT DIGIT*) | ZERO ;
WHITESPACE : ( '\t' | ' ' | '\r' | '\n'| '\u000C' )+ { $channel = HIDDEN; } ;
COMMENT : ('/*' .* '*/') | ('//' .* '\n') { $channel = HIDDEN; } ;
fragment ZERO : '0' ;
fragment DIGIT : '0' .. '9';
fragment NONZERO_DIGIT : '1' .. '9';
fragment LETTER : 'a' .. 'z' | 'A' .. 'Z';
Am I doing something wrong?
EDIT: When I use ANTLRWorks with the same grammar an input, a NoViableAltException is thrown. How do I get that error via code?
I could not reproduce it. When I generate a lexer and parser from your input after fixing the error in the grammar (rule = parser.entry_rule() should be: rule = parser.program()), and parse the input "December 12 1965" (either as input from a file, or as a plain string), I get the following error:
line 1:0 no viable alternative at input u'December'
Which may seem strange since that could be the start of a idList. The fact is, your grammar contains one more error and a small thing that could be improved:
WHITESPACE and COMMENT are placed on the HIDDEN channel, and are therefor not available in parser rules (at least, not without changing the channel from which the parser reads its tokens...);
a COMMENT at the end of the input, that is, without a \n at the end, will not be properly tokenized. Better define a single line comment like this: '//' ~('\r' | '\n')*. The trailing line break will be captured by the WHITESPACE rule after all.
Because the parser cannot match an idList (or a integerList for that matter) because of the whitespace rule, an error is produced pointing at the very first token ('December').
Here's a grammar that works (as expected):
grammar ParserLang;
options {
language=Python;
}
#header {
import sys
import antlr3
from ParserLangLexer import ParserLangLexer
}
#main {
def main(argv, otherArg=None):
lexer = ParserLangLexer(antlr3.ANTLRStringStream('December 12 1965'))
parser = ParserLangParser(CommonTokenStream(lexer))
parser.program()
}
program : idList EOF
| integerList EOF
;
idList : ID+
;
integerList : INTEGER+
;
ID : LETTER (DIGIT | LETTER)*;
INTEGER : (NONZERO_DIGIT DIGIT*) | ZERO ;
WHITESPACE : ( '\t' | ' ' | '\r' | '\n'| '\u000C' )+ { $channel = HIDDEN; } ;
COMMENT : ('/*' .* '*/' | '//' ~('\r' | '\n')*) { $channel = HIDDEN; } ;
fragment ZERO : '0' ;
fragment DIGIT : '0' .. '9';
fragment NONZERO_DIGIT : '1' .. '9';
fragment LETTER : 'a' .. 'z' | 'A' .. 'Z';
Running the parser generated from the grammar above will also produce an error:
line 1:9 missing EOF at u'12'
but that is expected: after an idList, the parser expects the EOF, but it encounters '12' instead.
I'm trying to parse a language using ANTLR which can contain the following syntax:
someVariable, somVariable.someMember, functionCall(param).someMember, foo.bar.baz(bjork).buffalo().xyzzy
This is the ANTLR grammar which i've come up with so far, and the access_operation throws the error
The following sets of rules are mutually left-recursive [access_operation, expression]:
grammar Test;
options {
output=AST;
ASTLabelType=CommonTree;
}
tokens {
LHS;
RHS;
CALL;
PARAMS;
}
start
: body? EOF
;
body
: expression (',' expression)*
;
expression
: function -> ^(CALL)
| access_operation
| atom
;
access_operation
: (expression -> ^(LHS)) '.'! (expression -> ^(RHS))
;
function
: (IDENT '(' body? ')') -> ^(IDENT PARAMS?)
;
atom
: IDENT
| NUMBER
;
fragment LETTER : ('a'..'z' | 'A'..'Z');
fragment DIGIT : '0'..'9';
IDENT : (LETTER)+ ;
NUMBER : (DIGIT)+ ;
SPACE : (' ' | '\t' | '\r' | '\n') { $channel=HIDDEN; };
What i could manage so far was to refactor the access_operation rule to '.' expression which generates an AST where the access_operation node only contains the right side of the operation.
What i'm looking for instead is something like this:
How can the left-recursion problem solved in this case?
By "wrong AST" I'll make a semi educated guess that, for input like "foo.bar.baz", you get an AST where foo is the root with bar as a child who in its turn has baz as a child, which is a leaf in the AST. You may want to have this reversed. But I'd not go for such an AST if I were you: I'd keep the AST as flat as possible:
foo
/ | \
/ | \
bar baz ...
That way, evaluating is far easier: you simply look up foo, and then walk from left to right through its children.
A quick demo:
grammar Test;
options {
output=AST;
ASTLabelType=CommonTree;
}
tokens {
BODY;
ACCESS;
CALL;
PARAMS;
}
start
: body EOF -> body
;
body
: expression (',' expression)* -> ^(BODY expression+)
;
expression
: atom
;
atom
: NUMBER
| (IDENT -> IDENT) ( tail -> ^(IDENT tail)
| call tail? -> ^(CALL IDENT call tail?)
)?
;
tail
: (access)+
;
access
: ('.' IDENT -> ^(ACCESS IDENT)) (call -> ^(CALL IDENT call))?
;
call
: '(' (expression (',' expression)*)? ')' -> ^(PARAMS expression*)
;
IDENT : LETTER+;
NUMBER : DIGIT+;
SPACE : (' ' | '\t' | '\r' | '\n') {$channel=HIDDEN;};
fragment LETTER : ('a'..'z' | 'A'..'Z');
fragment DIGIT : '0'..'9';
which can be tested with:
import org.antlr.runtime.*;
import org.antlr.runtime.tree.*;
import org.antlr.stringtemplate.*;
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
String src = "someVariable, somVariable.someMember, functionCall(param).someMember, " +
"foo.bar.baz(bjork).buffalo().xyzzy";
TestLexer lexer = new TestLexer(new ANTLRStringStream(src));
TestParser parser = new TestParser(new CommonTokenStream(lexer));
CommonTree tree = (CommonTree)parser.start().getTree();
DOTTreeGenerator gen = new DOTTreeGenerator();
StringTemplate st = gen.toDOT(tree);
System.out.println(st);
}
}
The output of Main corresponds to the following AST:
EDIT
And since you indicated your ultimate goal is not evaluating the input, but that you rather need to conform the structure of the AST to some 3rd party API, here's a grammar that will create an AST like you indicated in your edited question:
grammar Test;
options {
output=AST;
ASTLabelType=CommonTree;
}
tokens {
BODY;
ACCESS_OP;
CALL;
PARAMS;
LHS;
RHS;
}
start
: body EOF -> body
;
body
: expression (',' expression)* -> ^(BODY expression+)
;
expression
: atom
;
atom
: NUMBER
| (ID -> ID) ( ('(' params ')' -> ^(CALL ID params))
('.' expression -> ^(ACCESS_OP ^(LHS ^(CALL ID params)) ^(RHS expression)))?
| '.' expression -> ^(ACCESS_OP ^(LHS ID) ^(RHS expression))
)?
;
params
: (expression (',' expression)*)? -> ^(PARAMS expression*)
;
ID : LETTER+;
NUMBER : DIGIT+;
SPACE : (' ' | '\t' | '\r' | '\n') {$channel=HIDDEN;};
fragment LETTER : ('a'..'z' | 'A'..'Z');
fragment DIGIT : '0'..'9';
which creates the following AST if you run the Main class:
The atom rule may be a bit daunting, but you can't shorten it much since the left ID needs to be available to most of the alternatives. ANTLRWorks helps in visualizing the alternative paths this rule may take:
which means atom can be any of the 5 following alternatives (with their corresponding AST's):
+----------------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| alternative | generated AST |
+----------------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| NUMBER | NUMBER |
| ID | ID |
| ID params | ^(CALL ID params) |
| ID params expression | ^(ACCESS_OP ^(LHS ^(CALL ID params)) ^(RHS expression))|
| ID expression | ^(ACCESS_OP ^(LHS ID) ^(RHS expression) |
+----------------------+--------------------------------------------------------+