For my parser, for the purpose of this question, any line starting with a single lowercase letter among a set of lowercase letters, followed by the character '=' followed by any other character is a valid line. So, the following are valid lines (all starting from first column):
a=20
b=50 70
q=20 Hello There
z=-
Any other line is not valid. My need is to match the complement. How do I write a flex expression to match the invalid lines. My confusion arises from the ^ which means start of line as well as complement the expression.
I thought ^[abq][=].+ would match the acceptable line so merely complementing it with ^ will do. But ^ at the start of the expression always implies match at start of the line. I made a few other attempts but that did not work too. Though not relevant, the expression is used as the first step to discard invalid SDP lines. See here for details from the relevant SDP RFC, if it matters.
The simplest approach is to always match entire lines (or use different start conditions to lexically analyse the rest of valid lines). Although flex does not have a negation operator (the [^…] negative character class is not an operator), in this case the expressions are pretty simple and can be expressed easily enough. Note that it doesn't matter that the various "invalid line" patterns are not disjoint, since it doesn't matter which one matches a particular invalid line. So here are three patterns which I believe collectively match all invalid lines
[^abqz\n].* { /* Starts with the wrong letter */ }
.[^=\n] { /* Second character not = */ }
.$ { /* Only one character in line */ }
Related
Groovy supports / as a division operator:
groovy> 1 / 2
===> 0.5
It supports / as a string delimiter, which can even be multiline:
groovy> x = /foo/
===> foo
groovy:000> x = /foo
groovy:001> bar/
===> foo
bar
Given this, why can't I evaluate a slashy-string literal in groovysh?
groovy:000> /foo/
groovy:001>
clearly groovysh thinks this is unterminated for some reason.
How does groovy avoid getting confused between division and strings? What does this code mean:
groovy> f / 2
Is this a function call f(/2 .../) where / is beginning a multiline slashy-string, or f divided by 2?
How does Groovy distinguish division from strings?
I'm not entirely sure how Groovy does it, but I'll describe how I'd do it, and I'd be very surprised if Groovy didn't work in a similar way.
Most parsing algorithms I've heard of (Shunting-yard, Pratt, etc) recognize two distinct kinds of tokens:
Those that expect to be preceded by an expression (infix operators, postfix operators, closing parentheses, etc). If one of these is not preceded by an expression, it's a syntax error.
Those that do not expect to be preceded by an expression (prefix operators, opening parentheses, identifiers, literals, etc). If one of these is preceded by an expression, it's a syntax error.
To make things easier, from this point onward I'm going to refer to the former kind of token as an operator and the latter as a non-operator.
Now, the interesting thing about this distinction is that it's made not based on what the token actually is, but rather on the immediate context, particularly the preceding tokens. Because of this, the same token can be interpreted very differently depending on its position in the code, and whether the parser classifies it as an operator or a non-operator. For example, the '-' token, if in an operator position, denotes a subtraction, but the same token in a non-operator position is a negation. There is no issue deciding whether a '-' is a subtraction operator or not, because you can tell based on its context.
The same is, in general, true for the '/' character in Groovy. If preceded by an expression, it's interpreted as an operator, which means it's a division. Otherwise, it's a non-operator, which makes it a string literal. So, you can generally tell if a '/' is a division or not, by looking at the token that immediately precedes it:
The '/' is a division if it follows an identifier, literal, postfix operator, closing parenthesis, or other token that denotes the end of an expression.
The '/' begins a string if it follows a prefix operator, infix operator, opening parenthesis, or other such token, or if it begins a line.
Of course, it isn't quite so simple in practice. Groovy is designed to be flexible in the face of various styles and uses, and therefore things like semicolons or parentheses are often optional. This can make parsing somewhat ambiguous at times. For example, say our parser comes across the following line:
println / foo
This is most likely an attempt to print a multiline string: foo is the beginning of a string being passed to println as an argument, and the optional parentheses around the argument list are left out. Of course, to a simple parser it looks like a division. I expect the Groovy parser can tell the difference by reading ahead to the following lines to see which interpretation does not give an error, but for something like groovysh that is literally impossible (since, as a repl, it doesn't yet have access to more lines), so it's forced to just guess.
Why can't I evaluate a slashy-string literal in groovysh?
As before, I don't know the exact reason, but I do know that because groovysh is a repl, it's bound to have more trouble with the more ambiguous rules. Even so, a simple single-line slashy-string is pretty unambiguous, so I believe something else may be going on here. Here is the result of me playing with various forms in groovysh:
> /foo - unexpected char: '/' # line 2, column 1.
> /foo/ - awaits further input
> /foo/bar - unexpected char: '/' # line 2, column 1.
> /foo/bar/ - awaits further input
> /foo/ + 'bar' - unexpected char: '/' # line 2, column 1.
> 'foo' + /bar/ - evaluates to 'foobar'
> /foo/ - evaluates to 'foo'
> /foo - awaits further input
> /foo/bar - Unknown property: bar
It appears that something strange happens when a '/' character is the first character in a line. The pattern it appears to follow (as far as I can tell) is this:
A slash as the first character of a line begins a strange parsing mode.
In this mode, every line that ends with a slash followed by nothing but whitespace causes the repl to await further lines.
On the first line that ends with something other than a slash (or whitespace following a slash), the error unexpected char: '/' # line 2, column 1. is printed.
I've also noticed a couple of interesting points regarding this:
Both forward slashes (/) and backslashes (\) appear to count, and seem to be completely interchangeable, in this special mode.
This does not appear to happen at all in groovyConsole or in actual Groovy files.
Putting any whitespace before the opening slash character causes groovysh to interpret it correctly, but only if the opening slash is a forward slash, not a backslash.
So, I personally expect that this is just a quirk of groovysh, either a bug or some under-documented feature I haven't heard about.
I have the following line:
<INITIAL><<EOF>> {return 0;}
and I need to ignore the last EOL - \n or \r\n before the EOF.
I can't figure out how to concatenate it to EOFso that it will be a valid regular expression.. I've tried:
<INITIAL>((\n)|(\r\n))*<<EOF>> {return 0;}
but it says it's an "unrecognized rule".
<<EOF>> is not really a pattern symbol, since it cannot be part of a pattern. Logically, the EOF marker is not a character; the <<EOF>> pseudo-pattern is the only flex pattern which can be matched by an empty string.
There is no flex pattern symbol which represents end of input and thus it is not possible to express a pattern "followed by EOF".
So you need to work from a different perspective: detect a pattern which is not followed by EOF.
If a pattern is not followed by EOF, it must be followed by at least one character. That we can write using the trailing context operator. Once we've matched those instances of the pattern, any remaining match for the pattern can only be used if that match is followed by EOF, because of the longest match rule:
\r?\n/(.|\n) { /* A new line NOT followed by EOF */ }
\r?\n { /* A new line followed by EOF */ }
We needed to use .|\n in the trailing context because . doesn't match \n. The parentheses are unnecessary because of the precedence of the trailing context operator.
Forcing the detection of trailing context after a newline will make interactive use of this scanner annoying, since if a newline token is returned by the first rule, it will not actually be returned until another line is read.
By the way, there is no need for
<INITIAL><<EOF>> {return 0;}
That is the flex default behaviour on end-of-file, and you only need an <<EOF>> rule if you need to do something prior to returning 0.
Some language grammars use negations in their rules. For example, in the Dart specification the following rule is used:
~('\'|'"'|'$'|NEWLINE)
Which means match anything that is not one of the rules inside the parenthesis. Now, I know in flex I can negate character rules (ex: [^ab] , but some of the rules I want to negate could be more complicated than a single character so I don't think I could use character rules for that. For example I may need to negate the sequence '"""' for multiline strings but I'm not sure what the way to do it in flex would be.
(TL;DR: Skip down to the bottom for a practical answer.)
The inverse of any regular language is a regular language. So in theory it is possible to write the inverse of a regular expression as a regular expression. Unfortunately, it is not always easy.
The """ case, at least, is not too difficult.
First, let's be clear about what we are trying to match.
Strictly speaking "not """" would mean "any string other than """". But that would include, for example, x""".
So it might be tempting to say that we're looking for "any string which does not contain """". (That is, the inverse of .*""".*). But that's not quite correct either. The typical usage is to tokenise an input like:
"""This string might contain " or ""."""
If we start after the initial """ and look for the longest string which doesn't contain """, we will find:
This string might contain " or "".""
whereas what we wanted was:
This string might contain " or "".
So it turns out that we need "any string which does not end with " and which doesn't contain """", which is actually the conjunction of two inverses: (~.*" ∧ ~.*""".*)
It's (relatively) easy to produce a state diagram for that:
(Note that the only difference between the above and the state diagram for "any string which does not contain """" is that in that state diagram, all the states would be accepting, and in this one states 1 and 2 are not accepting.)
Now, the challenge is to turn that back into a regular expression. There are automated techniques for doing that, but the regular expressions they produce are often long and clumsy. This case is simple, though, because there is only one accepting state and we need only describe all the paths which can end in that state:
([^"]|\"([^"]|\"[^"]))*
This model will work for any simple string, but it's a little more complicated when the string is not just a sequence of the same character. For example, suppose we wanted to match strings terminated with END rather than """. Naively modifying the above pattern would result in:
([^E]|E([^N]|N[^D]))* <--- DON'T USE THIS
but that regular expression will match the string
ENENDstuff which shouldn't have been matched
The real state diagram we're looking for is
and one way of writing that as a regular expression is:
([^E]|E(E|NE)*([^EN]|N[^ED]))
Again, I produced that by tracing all the ways to end up in state 0:
[^E] stays in state 0
E in state 1:
(E|NE)*: stay in state 1
[^EN]: back to state 0
N[^ED]:back to state 0 via state 2
This can be a lot of work, both to produce and to read. And the results are error-prone. (Formal validation is easier with the state diagrams, which are small for this class of problems, rather than with the regular expressions which can grow to be enormous).
A practical and scalable solution
Practical Flex rulesets use start conditions to solve this kind of problem. For example, here is how you might recognize python triple-quoted strings:
%x TRIPLEQ
start \"\"\"
end \"\"\"
%%
{start} { BEGIN( TRIPLEQ ); /* Note: no return, flex continues */ }
<TRIPLEQ>.|\n { /* Append the next token to yytext instead of
* replacing yytext with the next token
*/
yymore();
/* No return yet, flex continues */
}
<TRIPLEQ>{end} { /* We've found the end of the string, but
* we need to get rid of the terminating """
*/
yylval.str = malloc(yyleng - 2);
memcpy(yylval.str, yytext, yyleng - 3);
yylval.str[yyleng - 3] = 0;
return STRING;
}
This works because the . rule in start condition TRIPLEQ will not match " if the " is part of a string matched by {end}; flex always chooses the longest match. It could be made more efficient by using [^"]+|\"|\n instead of .|\n, because that would result in longer matches and consequently fewer calls to yymore(); I didn't write it that way above simply for clarity.
This model is much easier to extend. In particular, if we wanted to use <![CDATA[ as the start and ]]> as the terminator, we'd only need to change the definitions
start "<![CDATA["
end "]]>"
(and possibly the optimized rule inside the start condition, if using the optimization suggested above.)
I can't figure out what does this regex match:
A: "\\/\\/c\\/(\\d*)"
B: "\\/\\/(\\d*)"
I suppose they are matching some kind of number sequence since \d matches any digit but I'd like to know an example of a string that would be a match for this regex.
The pattern syntax is that specified by ICU. Expressions are created with NSRegularExpression in an iOS app and are correct.
The first matches //c/ + 0 or more digits. The second matches // + 0 or more digits. In both the digits are captured.
An example of a match for A) is //c/123
An example of a match for B) is //12345
When I use Cygwin which emulates Bash on Windows, I sometimes run into situations where I have to escape my escape characters which is what I think is making this expression look so weird. For instance, when I use sed to look for a single '\' I sometimes have to write it as '\\\\'. (Funny, StackOverflow proved my point. If you write 4 backslashes in the comment, it only shows two. So if you process it again, they might all disappear depending on your situation).
Considering this, it might be helpful to think of pairs of backslashes as representing only one if you're coming from a similar situation. My guess would be you are. Because of this I would say Erik Duymelinck is probably spot on. This will capture a sequence of digits that may or may not follow a couple slashes and a c:
//c/000
//00000
This regex matches an odd sequence of characters, which, at first glance, almost seem like a regex, since \d is a digit, and followed by an asterisk (\d*) would mean zero-or-more digits. But it's not a digit, because the escape-slash is escaped.
\\/\\/c\\/(\\d*)
So, for instance, this one matches the following text:
\/\/c\/\
\/\/c\/\d
\/\/c\/\dd
\/\/c\/\ddd
\/\/c\/\dddd
\/\/c\/\ddddd
\/\/c\/\dddddd
...
This one is almost the same
\\/\\/(\\d*)
except you just delete the c\/ from the above results:
\/\/\
\/\/\d
\/\/\dd
\/\/\ddd
\/\/\dddd
\/\/\ddddd
\/\/\dddddd
...
In both cases, the final \ and optional d is [capture group][1] one.
My first impression was that these regexes were intended for escaping in Java strings, meaning they would be completely invalid. If the were escaped for Java strings, such as
Pattern p = Pattern.compile("\\/\\/c\\/(\\d*)");
It would be invalid, because after un-escaping, it would result in this invalid regex:
\/\/c\/(\d*)
The single escape-slashes (\) are invalid. But the \d is valid, as it would mean any digit.
But again, I don't think they're invalid, and they're not escaped for a Java string. They're just odd.
I am writing a parse for a script language.
I need to recognize strings, integers and floats.
I successfully recognize strings with the rule:
[a-zA-Z0-9_]+ {return STRING;}
But I have problem recognizing Integers and Floats. These are the (wrong) rules I wrote:
["+"|"-"][1-9]{DIGIT}* { return INTEGER;}
["+"|"-"]["0." | [1-9]{DIGIT}*"."]{DIGIT}+ {return FLOAT;}
How can I fix them?
Furthermore, since a "abc123" is a valid string, how can I make sure that it is recognized as a string and not as the concatenation of a string ("abc") and an Integer ("123") ?
First problem: There's a difference between (...) and [...]. Your regular expressions don't do what you think they do because you're using the wrong punctuation.
Beyond that:
No numeric rule recognizes 0.
Both numeric rules require an explicit sign.
Your STRING rule recognizes integers.
So, to start:
[...] encloses a set of individual characters or character ranges. It matches a single character which is a member of the set.
(...) encloses a regular expression. The parentheses are used for grouping, as in mathematics.
"..." encloses a sequence of individual characters, and matches exactly those characters.
With that in mind, let's look at
["+"|"-"][1-9]{DIGIT}*
The first bracket expression ["+"|"-"] is a set of individual characters or ranges. In this case, the set contains: ", +, " (again, which has no effect because a set contains zero or one instances of each member), |, and the range "-", which is a range whose endpoints are the same character, and consequently only includes that character, ", which is already in the set. In short, that was equivalent to ["+|]. It will match one of those three characters. It requires one of those three characters, in fact.
The second bracket expression [1-9] matches one character in the range 1-9, so it probably does what you expected. Again, it matches exactly one character.
Finally, {DIGIT} matches the expansion of the name DIGIT. I'll assume that you have the definition:
DIGIT [0-9]
somewhere in your definitions section. (In passing, I note that you could have just used the character class [:digit:], which would have been unambiguous, and you would not have needed to define it.) It's followed by a *, which means that it will match zero or more repetitions of the {DIGIT} definition.
Now, an example of a string which matches that pattern:
|42
And some examples of strings which don't match that pattern:
-7 # The pattern must start with |, + or "
42 # Again, the pattern must start with |, + or "
+0 # The character following the + must be in the range [0-9]
Similarly, your float pattern, once the [...] expressions are simplified, becomes (writing out the individual pieces one per line, to make it more obvious):
["+|] # i.e. the set " + |
["0.|[1-9] # i.e. the set " 0 | [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
{DIGIT}* # Any number of digits
"." # A single period
] # A single ]
{DIGIT}+ # one or more digits
So here's a possible match:
"..]3
I'll skip over writing out the solution because I think you'll benefit more from doing it yourself.
Now, the other issues:
Some rule should match 0. If you don't want to allow leading zeros, you'll need to just a it as a separate rule.
Use the optional operator (?) to indicate that the preceding object is optional. eg. "foo"? matches either the three characters f, o, o (in order) or matches the empty string. You can use that to make the sign optional.
The problem is not the matching of abc123, as in your question. (F)lex always gives you the longest possible match, and the only rule which could match the starting character a is the string rule, so it will allow the string rule to continue as long as it can. It will always match all of abc123. However, it will also match 123, which you would probably prefer to be matched by your numeric rule. Here, the other (f)lex matching criterion comes into play: when there are two or more rules which could match exactly the same string, and none of the rules can match a longer string, (f)lex chooses the first rule in the file. So if you want to give numbers priority over strings, you have to put the number rule earlier in your (f)lex file than the string rule.
I hope that gives you some ideas about how to fix things.