I have the following grammar rules defined to cover tuples of the form: (a), (a,), (a,b), (a,b,) and so on. However, antlr3 gives the warning:
"Decision can match input such as "COMMA" using multiple alternatives: 1, 2
I believe this means that my grammar is not LL(1). This caught me by surprise as, based on my extremely limited understanding of this topic, the parser would only need to look one token ahead from (COMMA)? to ')' in order to know which comma it was on.
Also based on the discussion I found here I am further confused: Amend JSON - based grammar to allow for trailing comma
And their source code here: https://github.com/doctrine/annotations/blob/1.13.x/lib/Doctrine/Common/Annotations/DocParser.php#L1307
Is this because of the kind of parser that antlr is trying to generate and not because my grammar isn't LL(1)? Any insight would be appreciated.
options {k=1; backtrack=no;}
tuple : '(' IDENT (COMMA IDENT)* (COMMA)? ')';
DIGIT : '0'..'9' ;
LOWER : 'a'..'z' ;
UPPER : 'A'..'Z' ;
IDENT : (LOWER | UPPER | '_') (LOWER | UPPER | '_' | DIGIT)* ;
edit: changed typo in tuple: ... from (IDENT)? to (COMMA)?
Note:
The question has been edited since this answer was written. In the original, the grammar had the line:
tuple : '(' IDENT (COMMA IDENT)* (IDENT)? ')';
and that's what this answer is referring to.
That grammar works without warnings, but it doesn't describe the language you intend to parse. It accepts, for example, (a, b c) but fails to accept (a, b,).
My best guess is that you actually used something like the grammars in the links you provide, in which the final optional element is a comma, not an identifier:
tuple : '(' IDENT (COMMA IDENT)* (COMMA)? ')';
That does give the warning you indicate, and it won't match (a,) (for example), because, as the warning says, the second alternative has been disabled.
LL(1) as a property of formal grammars only applies to grammars with fixed right-hand sides, as opposed to the "Extended" BNF used by many top-down parser generators, including Antlr, in which a right-hand side can be a set of possibilities. It's possible to expand EBNF using additional non-terminals for each subrule (although there is not necessarily a canonical expansion, and expansions might differ in their parsing category). But, informally, we could extend the concept of LL(k) by saying that in every EBNF right-hand side, at every point where there is more than one alternative, the parser must be able to predict the appropriate alternative looking only at the next k tokens.
You're right that the grammar you provide is LL(1) in that sense. When the parser has just seen IDENT, it has three clear alternatives, each marked by a different lookahead token:
COMMA ↠ predict another repetition of (COMMA IDENT).
IDENT ↠ predict (IDENT).
')' ↠ predict an empty (IDENT)?.
But in the correct grammar (with my modification above), IDENT is a syntax error and COMMA could be either another repetition of ( COMMA IDENT ), or it could be the COMMA in ( COMMA )?.
You could change k=1 to k=2, thereby allowing the parser to examine the next two tokens, and if you did so it would compile with no warnings. In effect, that grammar is LL(2).
You could make an LL(1) grammar by left-factoring the expansion of the EBNF, but it's not going to be as pretty (or as easy for a reader to understand). So if you have a parser generator which can cope with the grammar as written, you might as well not worry about it.
But, for what it's worth, here's a possible solution:
tuple : '(' idents ')' ;
idents : IDENT ( COMMA ( idents )? )? ;
Untested because I don't have a working Antlr3 installation, but it at least compiles the grammar without warnings. Sorry if there is a problem.
It would probably be better to use tuple : '(' (idents)? ')'; in order to allow empty tuples. Also, there's no obvious reason to insist on COMMA instead of just using ',', assuming that '(' and ')' work as expected on Antlr3.
Related
I've been using the Antlr Matlab grammar from Antlr grammars
I found out I need to implement the ' Matlab operator. It is the complex conjugate transpose operator, used as such
result = input'
I tried a straightforward solution of adding it to unary_expression as an option postfix_expression '\''
However, this failed to parse when multiple of these operators were used on a single line.
Here's a significantly simplified version of the grammar, still exhibiting the exact problem:
grammar Grammar;
unary_expression
: IDENTIFIER
| unary_expression '\''
;
translation_unit : unary_expression CR ;
STRING_LITERAL : '\'' [a-z]* '\'' ;
IDENTIFIER : [a-zA-Z] ;
CR : [\r\n] + ;
Test cases, being parsed as translation_unit:
"x''\n" //fails getNumberOfSyntaxErrors returns 1
"x'\n" //passes
The failure also prints the message line 1:1 extraneous input '''' expecting CR to stderr.
The failure goes away if I either remove STRING_LITERAL, or change the * to +. Neither is a proper solution of course, as removing it is entirely off the table, and mandating non-empty strings is not quite correct, though I might be able to live with it. Also, forcing non-empty string does nothing to help the real use case, when the input is something like x' + y' instead of using the operator twice.
For some reason removing CR from the grammar and \n from the tests also makes the parsing run without problems, but yet again is not a useable solution.
What can I do to the grammar to make it work correctly? I'm assuming it's a problem with lexing specifically because removing STRING_LITERAL or making it unable to match '' makes it go away.
The lexer can never be made that context aware I think, but I don't know Matlab well enough to be sure. How could you check during tokenisation that these single quotes are operators:
x' + y';
while these are strings:
x = 'x' + ' + y';
?
Maybe you can do something similar as how in ECMAScript a / can be a division operator or a regex delimiter. In this grammar that is handled by a predicate in the lexer that uses some target code to check this.
If something like the above is not possible, I see no other way than to "promote" the creation of strings to the parser. That would mean removing STRING_LITERAL and introducing a parser rule that matches something like this:
string_literal
: QUOTE ~(QUOTE | CR)* QUOTE
;
// Needed to match characters inside strings
OTHER
: .
;
However, that will fail when a string like 'hi there' is encountered: the space in between hi and there will now be skipped by the WS rule. So WS should also be removed (spaces will then get matched by the OTHER rule). But now (of course) all spaces will litter the token stream and you'll have to account for them in all parser rules (not really a viable solution).
All in all: I don't see ANTLR as a suitable tool in this case. You might look into parser generators where there is no separation between tokenisation and parsing. Google for "PEG" and/or "scannerless parsing".
I'm writing a grammar for a toy language in Yacc (the one packaged with Go) and I have an expected shift-reduce conflict due to the following pseudo-issue. I have to distilled the problem grammar down to the following.
start:
stmt_list
expr:
INT | IDENT | lambda | '(' expr ')' { $$ = $2 }
lambda:
'(' params ')' '{' stmt_list '}'
params:
expr | params ',' expr
stmt:
/* empty */ | expr
stmt_list:
stmt | stmt_list ';' stmt
A lambda function looks something like this:
map((v) { v * 2 }, collection)
My parser emits:
conflicts: 1 shift/reduce
Given the input:
(a)
It correctly parses an expr by the '(' expr ')' rule. However given an input of:
(a) { a }
(Which would be a lambda for the identity function, returning its input). I get:
syntax error: unexpected '{'
This is because when (a) is read, the parser is choosing to reduce it as '(' expr ')', rather than consider it to be '(' params ')'. Given this conflict is a shift-reduce and not a reduce-reduce, I'm assuming this is solvable. I just don't know how to structure the grammar to support this syntax.
EDIT | It's ugly, but I'm considering defining a token so that the lexer can recognize the ')' '{' sequence and send it through as a single token to resolve this.
EDIT 2 | Actually, better still, I'll make lambdas require syntax like ->(a, b) { a * b} in the grammar, but have the lexer emit the -> rather than it being in the actual source code.
Your analysis is indeed correct; although the grammar is not ambiguous, it is impossible for the parser to decide with the input reduced to ( <expr> and with lookahead ) whether or not the expr should be reduced to params before shifting the ) or whether the ) should be shifted as part of a lambda. If the next token were visible, the decision could be made, so the grammar LR(2), which is outside of the competence of go/yacc.
If you were using bison, you could easily solve this problem by requesting a GLR parser, but I don't believe that go/yacc provides that feature.
There is an LR(1) grammar for the language (there is always an LR(1) grammar corresponding to any LR(k) grammar for any value of k) but it is rather annoying to write by hand. The essential idea of the LR(k) to LR(1) transformation is to shift the reduction decisions k-1 tokens forward by accumulating k-1 tokens of context into each production. So in the case that k is 2, each production P: N → α will be replaced with productions TNU → Tα U for each T in FIRST(α) and each U in FOLLOW(N). [See Note 1] That leads to a considerable blow-up of non-terminals in any non-trivial grammar.
Rather than pursuing that idea, let me propose two much simpler solutions, both of which you seem to be quite close to.
First, in the grammar you present, the issue really is simply the need for a two-token lookahead when the two tokens are ){. That could easily be detected in the lexer, and leads to a solution which is still hacky but a simpler hack: Return ){ as a single token. You need to deal with intervening whitespace, etc., but it doesn't require retaining any context in the lexer. This has the added bonus that you don't need to define params as a list of exprs; they can just be a list of IDENT (if that's relevant; a comment suggests that it isn't).
The alternative, which I think is a bit cleaner, is to extend the solution you already seem to be proposing: accept a little too much and reject the errors in a semantic action. In this case, you might do something like:
start:
stmt_list
expr:
INT
| IDENT
| lambda
| '(' expr_list ')'
{ // If $2 has more than one expr, report error
$$ = $2
}
lambda:
'(' expr_list ')' '{' stmt_list '}'
{ // If anything in expr_list is not a valid param, report error
$$ = make_lambda($2, $4)
}
expr_list:
expr | expr_list ',' expr
stmt:
/* empty */ | expr
stmt_list:
stmt | stmt_list ';' stmt
Notes
That's only an outline; the complete algorithm includes the mechanism to recover the original parse tree. If k is greater than 2 then T and U are strings the the FIRSTk-1 and FOLLOWk-1 sets.
If it really is a shift-reduce conflict, and you want only the shift behavior, your parser generator may give you a way to prefer a shift vs. a reduce. This is classically how the conflict for grammar rules for "if-then-stmt" and "if-then-stmt-else-stmt" is resolved, when the if statement can also be a statement.
See http://www.gnu.org/software/bison/manual/html_node/Shift_002fReduce.html
You can get this effect two ways:
a) Count on the accidental behavior of the parsing engine.
If an LALR parser handles shifts first, and then reductions if there are no shifts, then you'll get this "prefer shift" for free. All the parser generator has to do is built the parse tables anyway, even if there is a detected conflict.
b) Enforce the accidental behavior. Design (or a get a) parser generator to accept "prefer shift on token T". Then one can supress the ambiguity. One still have to implement the parsing engine as in a) but that's pretty easy.
I think this is easier/cleaner than abusing the lexer to make strange tokens (and that doesn't always work anyway).
Obviously, you could make a preference for reductions to turn it the other way. With some extra hacking, you could make shift-vs-reduce specific the state in which the conflict occured; you can even make it specific to the pair of conflicting rules but now the parsing engine needs to keep preference data around for nonterminals. That still isn't hard. Finally, you could add a predicate for each nonterminal which is called when a shift-reduce conflict is about to occur, and it have it provide a decision.
The point is you don't have to accept "pure" LALR parsing; you can bend it easily in a variety of ways, if you are willing to modify the parser generator/engine a little bit. This gives a really good reason to understand how these tools work; then you can abuse them to your benefit.
In the appendices of the Dragon-book, a LL(1) front end was given as a example. I think it is very helpful. However, I find out that for the context free grammar below, a at least LL(2) parser was needed instead.
statement : variable ':=' expression
| functionCall
functionCall : ID'(' (expression ( ',' expression )*)? ')'
;
variable : ID
| ID'.'variable
| ID '[' expression ']'
;
How could I adapt the lexer for LL(1) parser to support k look ahead tokens?
Are there some elegant ways?
I know I can add some buffers for tokens. I'd like to discuss some details of programming.
this is the Parser:
class Parser
{
private Lexer lex;
private Token look;
public Parser(Lexer l)
{
lex = l;
move();
}
private void move()
{
look = lex.scan();
}
}
and the Lexer.scan() returns the next token from the stream.
In effect, you need to buffer k lookahead tokens in order to do LL(k) parsing. If k is 2, then you just need to extend your current method, which buffers one token in look, using another private member look2 or some such. For larger k, you could use a ring buffer.
In practice, you don't need the full lookahead all the time. Most of the time, one-token lookahead is sufficient. You should structure the code as a decision tree, where future tokens are only consulted if necessary to resolve ambiguity. (It's often useful to provide a special token type, "unknown", which can be assigned to the buffered token list to indicate that the lookahead hasn't reached that point yet. Alternatively, you can just always maintain k tokens of lookahead; for handbuilt parsers, that can be simpler.)
Alternatively, you can use a fallback structure where you simply try one alternative and if that doesn't work, instead of reporting a syntax error, restore the state of the parser and lexer to the next alternative. In this model, the lexer takes as an explicit argument the current input buffer position, and the input buffer needs to be rewindable. However, you can use a lookahead buffer to effectively memoize the lexer function, which can avoid rewinding and rescanning. (Scanning is usually fast enough that occasional rescans don't matter, so you might want to put off adding code complexity until your profiling indicates that it would be useful.)
Two notes:
1) I'm skeptical about the rule:
functionCall : ID'(' (expression ( ',' expression )*)* ')'
;
That would allow, for example:
function(a[3], b[2] c[x] d[y], e.foo)
which doesn't look right to me. Normally, you'd mark the contents of the () as optional instead of repeatable, eg. using an optional marker ? instead of the second Kleene star *:
functionCall : ID'(' (expression ( ',' expression )*)? ')'
;
2) In my opinion, you really should consider using bottom-up parsing for an expression language, either a generated LR(1) parser or a hand-built Pratt parser. LL(1) is rarely adequate. Of course, if you're using a parser generator, you can use tools like ANTLR which effectively implement LL(∞); that will take care of the lookahead for you.
I have written a lexer and parser to analyze linear algebra statements. Each statement consists of one or more expressions followed by one or more declarations. I am using menhir and OCaml to write the lexer and parser.
For example:
Ax = b, where A is invertible.
This should be read as A * x = b, (A, invertible)
In an expression all ids must be either an uppercase or lowercase symbol. I would like to overload the multiplication operator so that the user does not have to type in the '*' symbol.
However, since the lexer also needs to be able to read strings (such as "invertible" in this case), the "Ax" portion of the expression is sent over to the parser as a string. This causes a parser error since no strings should be encountered in the expression portion of the statement.
Here is the basic idea of the grammar
stmt :=
| expr "."
| decl "."
| expr "," decl "."
expr :=
| term
| unop expr
| expr binop expr
term :=
| <int> num
| <char> id
| "(" expr ")"
decl :=
| id "is" kinds
kinds :=
| <string> kind
| kind "and" kinds
Is there some way to separate the individual characters and tell the parser that they should be treated as multiplication? Is there a way to change the lexer so that it is smart enough to know that all character clusters before a comma are ids and all clusters after should be treated as strings?
It seems to me you have two problems:
You want your lexer to treat sequences of characters differently in different places.
You want multiplication to be indicated by adjacent expressions (no operator in between).
The first problem I would tackle in the lexer.
One question is why you say you need to use strings. This implies that there is a completely open-ended set of things you can say. It might be true, but if you can limit yourself to a smallish number, you can use keywords rather than strings. E.g., invertible would be a keyword.
If you really want to allow any string at all in such places, it's definitely still possible to hack a lexer so that it maintains a state describing what it has seen, and looks ahead to see what's coming. If you're not required to adhere to a pre-defined grammar, you could adjust your grammar to make this easier. (E.g., you could use commas for only one purpose.)
For the second problem, I'd say you need to add adjacency to your grammar. I.e., your grammar needs a rule that says something like term := term term. I suspect it's tricky to get this to work correctly, but it does work in OCaml (where adjacent expressions represent function application) and in awk (where adjacent expressions represent string concatenation).
I'm trying to parse a simple grammar using an LALR(1) parser generator (Bison, but the problem is not specific to that tool), and I'm hitting a shift-reduce conflict. The docs and other sources I've found about fixing these tend to say one or more of the following:
If the grammar is ambiguous (e.g. if-then-else ambiguity), change the language to fix the ambiguity.
If it's an operator precedence issue, specify precedence explicitly.
Accept the default resolution and tell the generator not to complain about it.
However, none of these seem to apply to my situation: the grammar is unambiguous so far as I can tell (though of course it's ambiguous with only one character of lookahead), it has only one operator, and the default resolution leads to parse errors on correctly-formed input. Are there any techniques for reworking the definition of a grammar to remove shift-reduce conflicts that don't fall into the above buckets?
For concreteness, here's the grammar in question:
%token LETTER
%%
%start input;
input: /* empty */ | input input_elt;
input_elt: rule | statement;
statement: successor ';';
rule: LETTER "->" successor ';';
successor: /* empty */ | successor LETTER;
%%
The intent is to parse semicolon-separated lines of the form "[A-Za-z]+" or "[A-Za-z] -> [A-Za-z]+".
Using the Solaris version of yacc, I get:
1: shift/reduce conflict (shift 5, red'n 7) on LETTER
state 1
$accept : input_$end
input : input_input_elt
successor : _ (7)
$end accept
LETTER shift 5
. reduce 7
input_elt goto 2
rule goto 3
statement goto 4
successor goto 6
So, the trouble is, as it very often is, the empty rule - specifically, the empty successor. It isn't completely clear whether you want to allow a semi-colon as a valid input - at the moment, it is. If you modified the successor rule to:
successor: LETTER | successor LETTER;
the shift/reduce conflict is eliminated.
Thanks for whittling down the grammar and posting it. Changing the successor rule to -
successor: /* empty */ | LETTER successor;
...worked for me. ITYM the language looked unambiguous.