I have this grammar below for implementing an IN operator taking a list of numbers or strings.
grammar listFilterExpr;
listFilterExpr: entityIdNumberListFilter | entityIdStringListFilter;
entityIdNumberProperty
: 'a.Id'
| 'c.Id'
| 'e.Id'
;
entityIdStringProperty
: 'f.phone'
;
listFilterExpr
: entityIdNumberListFilter
| entityIdStringListFilter
;
listOperator
: '$in:'
;
entityIdNumberListFilter
: entityIdNumberProperty listOperator numberList
;
entityIdStringListFilter
: entityIdStringProperty listOperator stringList
;
numberList: '[' ID (',' ID)* ']';
fragment ID: [1-9][0-9]*;
stringList: '[' STRING (',' STRING)* ']';
STRING
: '"'(ESC | SAFECODEPOINT)*'"'
;
fragment ESC
: '\\' (["\\/bfnrt] | UNICODE)
;
fragment SAFECODEPOINT
: ~ ["\\\u0000-\u001F]
;
If I try to parse the following input:
c.Id $in: [1,1]
Then I get the following error in the parser:
mismatched input '1' expecting ID
Please help me to correct this grammar.
Update
I found this following rule way above in the huge grammar file of my project that might be matching '1' before it gets to match to ID:
NUMBER
: '-'? INT ('.' [0-9] +)?
;
fragment INT
: '0' | [1-9] [0-9]*
;
But, If I write my ID rule before NUMBER then other things fail, because they have already matched ID which should have matched NUMBER
What should I do?
As mentioned by rici: ID should not be a fragment. Fragments can only be used by other lexer rules, they will never become a token on their own (and can therefor not be used in parser rules).
Just remove the fragment keyword from it: ID: [1-9][0-9]*;
Note that you'll also have to account for spaces. You probably want to skip them:
SPACES : [ \t\r\n] -> skip;
...
mismatched input '1' expecting ID
...
This looks like there's another lexer, besides ID, that also matches the input 1 and is defined before ID. In that case, have a look at this Q&A: ANTLR 4.5 - Mismatched Input 'x' expecting 'x'
EDIT
Because you have the rules ordered like this:
NUMBER
: '-'? INT ('.' [0-9] +)?
;
fragment INT
: '0' | [1-9] [0-9]*
;
ID
: [1-9][0-9]*
;
the lexer will never create an ID token (only NUMBER tokens will be created). This is just how ANTLR works: in case of 2 or more lexer rules match the same amount of characters, the one defined first "wins".
In the first place I think it's odd to have an ID rule that matches only digits, but, if that's the language you're parsing, OK. In your case, you could do something like this:
id : POS_NUMBER;
number : POS_NUMBER | NEG_NUMBER;
POS_NUMBER : INT ('.' [0-9] +)?;
NEG_NUMBER : '-' POS_NUMBER;
fragment INT
: '0' | [1-9] [0-9]*
;
and then instead of ID, use id in your parser rules. As well as using number instead of the NUMBER you're using now.
Related
I've written the following arithmetic grammar:
grammar Calc;
program
: expressions
;
expressions
: expression (NEWLINE expression)*
;
expression
: '(' expression ')' // parenExpression has highest precedence
| expression MULDIV expression // then multDivExpression
| expression ADDSUB expression // then addSubExpression
| OPERAND // finally the operand itself
;
MULDIV
: [*/]
;
ADDSUB
: [-+]
;
// 12 or .12 or 2. or 2.38
OPERAND
: [0-9]+ ('.' [0-9]*)?
| '.' [0-9]+
;
NEWLINE
: '\n'
;
And I've noticed that regardless of how I space the tokens I get the same result, for example:
1+2
2+3
Or:
1 +2
2+3
Still give me the same thing. Also I've noticed that adding in the following rule does nothing for me:
WS
: [ \r\n\t] + -> skip
Which makes me wonder whether skipping whitespace is the default behavior of antlr4?
ANTLR4 based parsers have the ability to skip over single unwanted or missing tokens and continue parsing if possible (which is the case here). And there's no default to ignore whitespaces. You have to always specify a whitespace rule which either skips them or puts them on a hidden channel.
I've seen the use of fragment quite frequently within a Lexing rule, but not quite sure what its use is, or why it cannot just be removed. For example in the following rule:
NUMBER
: DECIMAL ([Ee] [+-]?[0-9]+)?
;
fragment DECIMAL
: [0-9]+ ('.' [0-9]*)? | '.' [0-9]+
;
When I remove the fragment I still get the same parse tree. So what exactly is the use of using fragment or is it mainly an annotative type of thing?
As another example from this tutorial page:
Fragments are reusable parts of lexer rules which cannot match on their own - they need to be referenced from a lexer rule.
INTEGER: DIGIT+
| '0' [Xx] HEX_DIGIT+
;
fragment DIGIT: [0-9];
fragment HEX_DIGIT: [0-9A-Fa-f];
I see no difference from using the following two approaches:
And without fragments:
Could someone please explain why these would be useful then?
The fragment declaration prevents the part from being recognized as a token. That might not be necessary very often, but it can definitely save you from hard-to-find bugs.
Let's take the second example in your post, without the fragment modifiers:
expression: INTEGER ;
INTEGER: DIGIT+
| '0' [Xx] HEX_DIGIT+
;
DIGIT: [0-9];
HEX_DIGIT: [0-9A-Fa-f];
Now, we decide that we want to add variables to the grammar:
expression: INTEGER | IDENTIFIER ;
INTEGER: DIGIT+
| '0' [Xx] HEX_DIGIT+
;
DIGIT: [0-9];
HEX_DIGIT: [0-9A-Fa-f];
IDENTIFIER: LETTER (LETTER | DIGIT)+ ;
LETTER: [A-Za-z] ;
Do you see the bug?
The parser won't handle the input a, although it has no trouble with ax or i. That's because the tokeniser will interpret a as a HEX_DIGIT, not an IDENTIFIER.
Of course, I could have prevented that by putting HEX_DIGIT after IDENTIFIER, but that's more thinking about lexer rule ordering than I really want to do. I'd like the implementation details of IDENTIFIER and INTEGER to not interfere with each other, thank you very much.
Correctly flagging non-token fragments, like LETTER, DIGIT and HEX_DIGIT saves me from having to think about whether a fragment might somehow manage to high-jack a token definition somewhere else in the file.
Here's a possibly more pernicious example, based on your first example:
NUMBER : DECIMAL EXPONENT? ;
EXPONENT: [Ee] [+-]? [0-9]+ ;
DECIMAL : [0-9]+ ('.' [0-9]*)? | '.' [0-9]+ ;
Once I add expressions to that grammar, I'll find that f+17 is fine, but e+17 is a syntax error. Why? Because it is recognised as an EXPONENT, rather than being parsed as an expression. No reordering of lexical rules will prevent that. But adding the fragment modifiers does the trick.
I'm trying to write a grammar for Prolog interpreter. When I run grun from command line on input like "father(john,mary).", I get a message saying "no viable input at 'father(john,'" and I don't know why. I've tried rearranging rules in my grammar, used different entry points etc., but still get the same error. I'm not even sure if it's caused by my grammar or something else like antlr itself. Can someone point out what is wrong with my grammar or think of what could be the cause if not the grammar?
The commands I ran are:
antlr4 -no-listener -visitor Expr.g4
javac *.java
grun antlr.Expr start tests/test.txt -gui
And this is the resulting parse tree:
Here is my grammar:
grammar Expr;
#header{
package antlr;
}
//start rule
start : (program | query) EOF
;
program : (rule_ '.')*
;
query : conjunction '?'
;
rule_ : compound
| compound ':-' conjunction
;
conjunction : compound
| compound ',' conjunction
;
compound : Atom '(' elements ')'
| '.(' elements ')'
;
list : '[]'
| '[' element ']'
| '[' elements ']'
;
element : Term
| list
| compound
;
elements : element
| element ',' elements
;
WS : [ \t\r\n]+ -> skip ;
Atom : [a-z]([a-z]|[A-Z]|[0-9]|'_')*
| '0'
;
Var : [A-Z]([a-z]|[A-Z]|[0-9]|'_')*
;
Term : Atom
| Var
;
The lexer will always produce the same tokens for any input. The lexer does not "listen" to what the parser is trying to match. The rules the lexer applies are quite simple:
try to match as many characters as possible
when 2 or more lexer rules match the same amount of characters, let the rule defined first "win"
Because of the 2nd rule, the rule Term will never be matched. And moving the Term rule above Var and Atom will cause the latter rules to be never matched. The solution: "promote" the Term rule to a parser rule:
start : (program | query) EOF
;
program : (rule_ '.')*
;
query : conjunction '?'
;
rule_ : compound (':-' conjunction)?
;
conjunction : compound (',' conjunction)?
;
compound : Atom '(' elements ')'
| '.' '(' elements ')'
;
list : '[' elements? ']'
;
element : term
| list
| compound
;
elements : element (',' element)*
;
term : Atom
| Var
;
WS : [ \t\r\n]+ -> skip ;
Atom : [a-z] [a-zA-Z0-9_]*
| '0'
;
Var : [A-Z] [a-zA-Z0-9_]*
;
I try an Antlr4 grammar file. When I change define of ID property
ID :[A-Z]+;
to
ID: [A-Z][A-Za-z0-9_]* ;
I got this error.
line 1:7 mismatched input 'E550' expecting {'W', 'I'}
line 1:12 mismatched input ';' expecting {'W', 'I'}
Actualy I know the reason. which mathces with the longest one. But I must use ID Like erroneous way. and my foo must be E or I and Number. How can I make it happen? any help is appreciate.
Here is my code snippet which causes the error.
QUEST E550 ;
Here is my grammar
grammar test;
block: foo+;
foo:ID op=(WARNING|INFORMATION)INT SCOL;
SCOL :';';
WARNING :'W';
INFORMATION :'I';
ID: [A-Z]+ ;
//if I change to ID: [A-Z][A-Za-z0-9_]* ; error occurs
INT : [0-9]+;
SPACE: [ \t\r\n] -> skip;
OTHER: . ;
If your ID rule cannot start with W, I or E, then you will need to exclude those from the start:
ID: [A-DF-HJ-VX-Z] [A-Za-z0-9_]* ;
Of course, then input like EEEEE will not become an ID. To account for such cases, you could (1) let your ID rule start with a single uppercase other than W, I or E followed by the rest, or (2) let it start with 2 letters followed by the rest:
ID
: [A-DF-HJ-VX-Z] [A-Za-z0-9_]* // (1)
| [A-Z] [A-Z] [A-Za-z0-9_]* // (2)
;
Just looking for a simple way of getting ANTLR4 to generate a parser that will do the following (ignore anything after the ;):
int #i ; defines an int
int #j ; see how I have to go to another line for another statement?
My parser is as the following:
compilationUnit:
(statement END?)*
statement END?
EOF
;
statement:
intdef |
WS
;
// 10 - 1F block.
intdef:
'intdef' Identifier
;
// Lexer.
Identifier: '#' Letter LetterOrDigit*;
fragment Letter: [a-zA-Z_];
fragment LetterOrDigit: [a-zA-Z0-9$_];
// Whitespace, fragments and terminals.
WS: [ \t\r\n\u000C]+ -> skip;
//COMMENT: '/*' .*? '*/' -> channel(HIDDEN);
END: (';' ~[\r\n]*) | '\n';
In essence, any time I have a statement, I need it to REQUIRE a newline before another is entered. I don't care if there's 3 new lines and then on the second one a bunch of tabs persist, as long as there's a new line.
The issue is, the ANTLR4 Parse Tree seems to be giving me errors for inputs such as:
.
(Pretend the dot isnt there, its literally no input)
int #i int #j
Woops, we got two on the same line!
Any ideas on how I can achieve this? I appreciate the help.
I've simplified your grammar a bit but made it require an end-of-line sequence after each statement to parse correctly.
grammar Testnl;
program: (statement )* EOF ;
statement: 'int' Identifier EOL;
Identifier: '#' Letter LetterOrDigit*;
fragment Letter: [a-zA-Z_];
fragment LetterOrDigit: [a-zA-Z0-9$_];
EOL: ';' .*? '\r\n'
| ';' .*? '\n'
;
WS: [ \t\r\n\u000C]+ -> skip;
It parses
int #i ;
int #j;
[#0,0:2='int',<'int'>,1:0]
[#1,4:5='#i',<Identifier>,1:4]
[#2,7:9=';\r\n',<EOL>,1:7]
[#3,10:12='int',<'int'>,2:0]
[#4,14:15='#j',<Identifier>,2:4]
[#5,16:18=';\r\n',<EOL>,2:6]
[#6,19:18='<EOF>',<EOF>,3:0]
It also ignore stuff after the semicolon as just part of the EOL token:
[#0,0:2='int',<'int'>,1:0]
[#1,4:5='#i',<Identifier>,1:4]
[#2,7:20='; ignore this\n',<EOL>,1:7]
[#3,21:23='int',<'int'>,2:0]
[#4,25:26='#j',<Identifier>,2:4]
[#5,27:28=';\n',<EOL>,2:6]
[#6,29:28='<EOF>',<EOF>,3:0]
using either linefeed or carriagereturn-linefeed just fine. Is that what you're looking for?
EDIT
Per OP comment, made a small change to allow consecutive EOL tokens, and also move EOL token to statement to reduce repetition:
grammar Testnl;
program: ( statement EOL )* EOF ;
statement: 'int' Identifier;
Identifier: '#' Letter LetterOrDigit*;
fragment Letter: [a-zA-Z_];
fragment LetterOrDigit: [a-zA-Z0-9$_];
EOL: ';' .*? ('\r\n')+
| ';' .*? ('\n')+
;
WS: [ \t\r\n\u000C]+ -> skip;