Backward compatibility on parsing by means of FParsec - parsing

Imagine that I have simple string (in reality this string can contains much complex items like digit combination, Guid etc...):
"a, b, c"
and appropriate parser which works great with it.
Then after some changes string becomes:
"a, b, c, d, e"
Parser has been rewritten in manner to aim successful result.
But now I have to be sure that rewritten parser doesn't fail on parsing old format string.
Is it possible to provide backward compatibility with FParsec?


The backward compatibility should be implemented within your data model, and make the parser only to support this data model.
Say, if your Result datatype is a List<> (which is intended to be 3-elemens long), only a minimal intrusion makes the parser return a 4-element data. You then check data validity with your application logic, and you're all set.
However, if your Result is a fixed tuple/triple like T1 * T2 * T3, there is no straightforward way to add the fourth element. You would probably need an extra layer — usually implemented as a Discriminated Union (DU), like this:
type MyData =
| OldFormat of T1 * T2 * T3 // this is your old way
| NewFormat of T1 * T2 * T3 * T4 // this is your new data format
This way, you will have to implement a wrapper DU and also duplicate the parsing logic to support the 4-element data.
Check this, this, and this answers for some simple ways of parsing the "list of either-either" data.
Unless you provide with the existing code, it is hard to tell anything further.

Related

Armadillo subview issue

The following fragment produces a compilation error:
arma::Mat<double> a(10,10,arma::fill::zeros);
arma::ucolvec w = whatever1;
whatever2 = a.rows(w).each_col() + another-col-vector;
The error is that arma::subview_elem2 has no member named each_col.
In a number of cases in Armadillo, the standard array functions are not always available on expressions or results of other function calls. Clearly the rows() function does not return a Mat object, but a subview_elem2 object, presumably for optimization. Another way to do this would be to declare all the array functions in interfaces/pure abstract classes that Mat and other internal classes, such as subviews, implement. It seems it should be possible to make all Armadillo array expressions interchangeable with array objects aside from write operations for expressions that only generate r-values.
So... I could wish for the following
a) An explanation of which methods are not available for which results.
b) Preferably, enabling all combinations of array methods that make sense.
Absent the above, how can accomplish the desired result, which is to evaluate the expression:
a.rows(w).each_col()
??

Some prior information about armadillo
The armadillo library uses templates heavily and most operations return expression templates. Only when you assign the result to a variable the actual computation is performed. This is why you should not store the result of some computation with armadillo using auto.
For instance, given some matrices A, B and C, something like
auto D = A * B + C;
will not perform the computation and only the expression template is stored in D. On the other hand, using
arma::mat D = A * B + C;
will force the computation to happen and the result is stored in D.
Solution to your problem
Particularly to your question, something like a.rows(w) returns an expression template of type subview_elem2 (this file is defined in the source code armadillo_bits/subview_elem2_bones.hpp). This "temporary type" does not have a .each_col method, which results in the error you got. One way around is to store the result of a.rows(w) in a variable, but since you are not interested in the variable you can use the .eval() method. The .eval() method forces the expression template to perform the actual computation up to that point and thus the subsequent call to .each_col will work. That is, replace
a.rows(w).each_col() + another-col-vector;
with
a.rows(w).eval().each_col() + another-col-vector;

Parsing procedure calls for a toy language

I have a certain toy language that defines, amongst others, procedures and procedure calls, using EBNF syntax:
program = procedure, {procedure} ;
procedure = "procedure", NAME, bracedblock ;
bracedBlock = "{" , statementlist , "}" ;
statementlist = statement, { statement } ;
statement = define | if | while | call | // others omitted for brevity ;
define = NAME, "=", expression, ";"
if = "if", conditionalblock, "then", bracedBlock, "else", bracedBlock
call = "call" , NAME, ";" ;
// other definitions omitted for brevity
A tokeniser for a program in this language has been implemented, and returns a vector of tokens.
Now, parsing said program without the procedure calls, is fairly straightforward: one can define a recursive descent parser using the above grammar directly, and simply parse through the tokens. Some further notes:
Each procedure may call any other procedure except itself, directly or indirectly (i.e. no recursion), and these need not necessarily be in the order of appearance in the source code (i.e. B may be defined after A, and A may call B, or vice versa).
Procedure names need to be unique, and 'reserved keywords' may be used as variable/procedure names.
Whitespace does not matter, at least amongst tokens of different type: similar to C/C++.
There is no scoping rule: all variables are global.
The concept of a 'line number' is important: each statement has one or more line numbers associated with it: define statements have only 1 line number each, for instance, whereas an if statement, which is itself a parent of two statement lists, has multiple line numbers. For instance:
LN CODE
procedure A {
1. a = 5;
2. b = 7;
3. c = 3;
4. 5. if (b < c) then { call C; } else {
6. call B;
}
procedure B {
7. d = 5;
8. while (d > 2) {
9. d = d + 1; }
}
procedure C {
10. e = 10;
11. f = 8;
12. call B;
}
Line numbers are continuous throughout the program; only procedure definitions and the else keyword aren't assigned line numbers. The line numbers are defined by grammar, rather than their position in source code: for instance, consider 'lines' 4 and 5.
There are some relationships that need to be set in a database given each statement and its line number, variables used, variables set, and child containers. This is a key consideration.
My question is therefore this: how can I parse these function calls, maintain the integrity of the line numbers, and set the relationships?
I have considered the 'OS' way of doing things: upon encounter of a procedure call, look ahead for a procedure that matches said called procedure, parse the callee, and unroll the call stack back to the caller. However, this ruins the line number ordering: if the above program were to be parsed this way, C would have line numbers 6 to 8 inclusive, rather than 10 to 12 inclusive.
Another solution is to parse the entire program once in order, maintain a toposort of procedure calls, and then parse a second time by following said toposort. This is problematic because of implementation details.
Is there a possibly better way to do this?

It's always tempting to try to completely process a program text in a single on-line pass. Unfortunately, it is practically never the simplest solution. Trying to do everything at once in a linear progression results in a kind of spaghetti of intertwined computations, and making it all work almost always involves unnecessary restrictions on the language which will later prove to be unfortunate.
So I'd encourage you to reconsider some of your design decisions. If you use the parser just to build up some kind of structural representation of the program -- whether it's an abstract syntax tree or a vector of three-address code, or some other alternative -- and then do further processing in a series of single-purpose passes over that structural representations, you'll likely find that the code is:
much simpler, because computations don't have to be intermingled;
more general, because each pass can be done in the most convenient order rather than restricting inputs to fit a linear ordering;
more readable and more maintainable.
Persisting data structures over multiple passes might increase storage requirements slightly. But the structures are unlikely to occupy enough storage that this will be noticeable. And it probably will not increase the computation time; indeed, it might even reduce the time because the individual passes are simpler and easier to optimise.

Performant, idiomatic way to concatenate two chars that are not in a list into a string

I've done most of my development in C# and am just learning F#. Here's what I want to do in C#:
string AddChars(char char1, char char2) => char1.ToString() + char2.ToString();
EDIT: added ToString() method to the C# example.
I want to write the same method in F# and I don't know how to do it other than this:
let addChars char1 char2 = Char.ToString(char1) + Char.ToString(char2)
Is there a way to add concatenate these chars into a string without converting both into strings first?
Sidenote:
I also have considered making a char array and converting that into a string, but that seems similarly wasteful.
let addChars (char1:char) (char2: char) = string([|char1; char2|])

As I said in my comment, your C# code is not going to do what you want ( i.e. concatenate the characters into a string). In C#, adding a char and a char will result in an int. The reason for this is because the char type doesn't define a + operator, so C# reverts to the nearest compatable type that does, which just happens to be int. (Source)
So to accomplish this behavior, you will need to do something similar to what you are already trying to do in F#:
char a = 'a';
char b = 'b';
// This is the wrong way to concatenate chars, because the
// chars will be treated as ints and the result will be 195.
Console.WriteLine(a + b);
// These are the correct ways to concatenate characters into
// a single string. The result of all of these will be "ab".
// The third way is the recommended way as it is concise and
// involves creating the fewest temporary objects.
Console.WriteLine(a.ToString() + b.ToString());
Console.WriteLine(Char.ToString(a) + Char.ToString(b));
Console.WriteLine(new String(new[] { a, b }));
(See https://dotnetfiddle.net/aEh1FI)
F# is the same way in that concatenating two or more chars doesn't result in a String. Unlike C#, it results instead in another char, but the process is the same - the char values are treated like int and added together, and the result is the char representation of the sum.
So really, the way to concatenate chars into a String in F# is what you already have, and is the direct translation of the C# equivalent:
let a = 'a'
let b = 'b'
// This is still the wrong way (prints 'Ã')
printfn "%O" (a + b)
// These are still the right ways (prints "ab")
printfn "%O" (a.ToString() + b.ToString())
printfn "%O" (Char.ToString(a) + Char.ToString(b))
printfn "%O" (String [| a;b |]) // This is still the best way
(See https://dotnetfiddle.net/ALwI3V)
The reason the "String from char array" approach is the best way is two-fold. First, it is the most concise, since you can see that that approach offers the shortest line of code in both languages (and the difference only increases as you add more and more chars together). And second, only one temporary object is created (the array) before the final String, whereas the other two methods involve making two separate temporary String objects to feed into the final result.
(Also, I'm not sure if it works this way as the String constructors are hidden in external sources, but I imagine that the array passed into the constructor would be used as the String's backing data, so it wouldn't end up getting wasted at all.) Strings are immutable, but using the passed array directly as the created String's backing data could result in a situation where a reference to the array could be held elsewhere in the program and jeopardize the String's immutability, so this speculation wouldn't fly in practice. (Credit: #CaringDev)
Another option you could do in F# that could be more idiomatic is to use the sprintf function to combine the two characters (Credit: #rmunn):
let a = 'a'
let b = 'b'
let s = sprintf "%c%c" a b
printfn "%O" s
// Prints "ab"
(See https://dotnetfiddle.net/Pp9Tee)
A note of warning about this method, however, is that it is almost certainly going to be much slower than any of the other three methods listed above. That's because instead of processing array or String data directly, sprintf is going to be performing more advanced formatting logic on the output. (I'm not in a position where I could benchmark this myself at the moment, but plugged into #TomasPetricek's benckmarking code below, I wouldn't be surprised if you got performance hits of 10x or more.)
This might not be a big deal as for a single conversion it will still be far faster than any end-user could possibly notice, but be careful if this is going to be used in any performance-critical code.

The answer by #Abion47 already lists all the possible sensible methods I can think of. If you are interested in performance, then you can run a quick experiment using the F# Interactive #time feature:
#time
open System
open System.Text
let a = 'a'
let b = 'b'
Comparing the three methods, the one with String [| a; b |] turns out to be about twice as fast as the methods involving ToString. In practice, that's probably not a big deal unless you are doing millions of such operations (as my experiment does), but it's an interesting fact to know:
// 432ms, 468ms, 472ms
for i in 0 .. 10000000 do
let s = a.ToString() + b.ToString()
ignore s
// 396ms 440ms, 458ms
for i in 0 .. 10000000 do
let s = Char.ToString(a) + Char.ToString(b)
ignore s
// 201ms, 171ms, 170ms
for i in 0 .. 10000000 do
let s = String [| a;b |]
ignore s

Matching a string with a specific end in LPeg

I'm trying to capture a string with a combination of a's and b's but always ending with b. In other words:
local patt = S'ab'^0 * P'b'
matching aaab and bbabb but not aaa or bba. The above however does not match anything. Is this because S'ab'^0 is greedy and matches the final b? I think so and can't think of any alternatives except perhaps resorting to lpeg.Cmt which seems like overkill. But maybe not, anyone know how to match such a pattern? I saw this question but the problem with the solution there is that it would stop at the first end marker (i.e. 'cat' there, 'b' here) and in my case I need to accept the middle 'b's.
P.S.
What I'm actually trying to do is match an expression whose outermost rule is a function call.
E.g.
func();
func(x)(y);
func_arr[z]();
all match but
exp;
func()[1];
4 + 5;
do not. The rest of my grammar works and I'm pretty sure this boils down to the same issue but for completeness, the grammar I'm working with looks something like:
top_expr = V'primary_expr' * V'postfix_op'^0 * V'func_call_op' * P';';
postfix_op = V'func_call_op' + V'index_op';
And similarly the V'postfix_op'^0 eats up the func_call_op I'm expecting at the end.

Yes, there is no backtracking, so you've correctly identified the problem. I think the solution is to list the valid postfix_op expressions; I'd change V'func_call_op' + V'index_op' to V'func_call_op'^0 * V'index_op' and also change the final V'func_call_op' to V'func_call_op'^1 to allow several function calls at the end.
Update: as suggested in the comments, the solution to the a/b problem would be (P'b'^0 * P'a')^0 * P'b'^1.

How about this?
local final = P'b' * P(-1)
local patt = (S'ab' - final)^0 * final
The pattern final is what we need at the end of the string.
The pattern patt matches the set 'ab' unless it is followed by the final sequence. Then it asserts that we have the final sequence. That stops the final 'b' from being eaten.
This doesn't guarantee that we get any a's (but neither would the pattern in the question have).

Sorry my answer comes too late but I think it's worth to give this question a more correct answer.
As I understand it, you just want a non-blind greedy match. But unfortunately the "official documentation" of LPeg only tells us how to use LPeg for blind greedy match (or repetition). But this pattern can be described by a parsing expression grammar. For rule S if you want to match as many E1 as you can followed by E2, you need to write
S <- E1 S / E2
The solution to a/b problem becomes
S <- [ab] S / 'b'
You might want to optimize the rule by inserting some a's in the first option
S <- [ab] 'a'* S / 'b'
which will reduce the recursions a lot. As for your real problem, here's my answser:
top_expr <- primary_expr p_and_f ';'
p_and_f <- postfix_op p_and_f / func_call_op
postfix_op <- func_call_op / index_op

Creating a valid function declaration from a complex tuple/list structure

Is there a generic way, given a complex object in Erlang, to come up with a valid function declaration for it besides eyeballing it? I'm maintaining some code previously written by someone who was a big fan of giant structures, and it's proving to be error prone doing it manually.
I don't need to iterate the whole thing, just grab the top level, per se.
For example, I'm working on this right now -
[[["SIP",47,"2",46,"0"],32,"407",32,"Proxy Authentication Required","\r\n"],
[{'Via',
[{'via-parm',
{'sent-protocol',"SIP","2.0","UDP"},
{'sent-by',"172.20.10.5","5060"},
[{'via-branch',"z9hG4bKb561e4f03a40c4439ba375b2ac3c9f91.0"}]}]},
{'Via',
[{'via-parm',
{'sent-protocol',"SIP","2.0","UDP"},
{'sent-by',"172.20.10.15","5060"},
[{'via-branch',"12dee0b2f48309f40b7857b9c73be9ac"}]}]},
{'From',
{'from-spec',
{'name-addr',
[[]],
{'SIP-URI',
[{userinfo,{user,"003018CFE4EF"},[]}],
{hostport,"172.20.10.11",[]},
{'uri-parameters',[]},
[]}},
[{tag,"b7226ffa86c46af7bf6e32969ad16940"}]}},
{'To',
{'name-addr',
[[]],
{'SIP-URI',
[{userinfo,{user,"3966"},[]}],
{hostport,"172.20.10.11",[]},
{'uri-parameters',[]},
[]}},
[{tag,"a830c764"}]},
{'Call-ID',"90df0e4968c9a4545a009b1adf268605#172.20.10.15"},
{'CSeq',1358286,"SUBSCRIBE"},
["date",'HCOLON',
["Mon",44,32,["13",32,"Jun",32,"2011"],32,["17",58,"03",58,"55"],32,"GMT"]],
{'Contact',
[[{'name-addr',
[[]],
{'SIP-URI',
[{userinfo,{user,"3ComCallProcessor"},[]}],
{hostport,"172.20.10.11",[]},
{'uri-parameters',[]},
[]}},
[]],
[]]},
["expires",'HCOLON',3600],
["user-agent",'HCOLON',
["3Com",[]],
[['LWS',["VCX",[]]],
['LWS',["7210",[]]],
['LWS',["IP",[]]],
['LWS',["CallProcessor",[['SLASH',"v10.0.8"]]]]]],
["proxy-authenticate",'HCOLON',
["Digest",'LWS',
["realm",'EQUAL',['SWS',34,"3Com",34]],
[['COMMA',["domain",'EQUAL',['SWS',34,"3Com",34]]],
['COMMA',
["nonce",'EQUAL',
['SWS',34,"btbvbsbzbBbAbwbybvbxbCbtbzbubqbubsbqbtbsbqbtbxbCbxbsbybs",
34]]],
['COMMA',["stale",'EQUAL',"FALSE"]],
['COMMA',["algorithm",'EQUAL',"MD5"]]]]],
{'Content-Length',0}],
"\r\n",
["\n"]]

Maybe https://github.com/etrepum/kvc

I noticed your clarifying comment. I'd prefer to add a comment myself, but don't have enough karma. Anyway, the trick I use for that is to experiment in the shell. I'll iterate a pattern against a sample data structure until I've found the simplest form. You can use the _ match-all variable. I use an erlang shell inside an emacs shell window.
First, bind a sample to a variable:
A = [{a,b},[{c,d}, {e,f}]].
Now set the original structure against the variable:
[{a,b},[{c,d},{e,f}]] = A.
If you hit enter, you'll see they match. Hit alt-p (forget what emacs calls alt, but it's alt on my keyboard) to bring back the previous line. Replace some tuple or list item with an underscore:
[_,[{c,d},{e,f}]].
Hit enter to make sure you did it right and they still match. This example is trivial, but for deeply nested, multiline structures it's trickier, so it's handy to be able to just quickly match to test. Sometimes you'll want to try to guess at whole huge swaths, like using an underscore to match a tuple list inside a tuple that's the third element of a list. If you place it right, you can match the whole thing at once, but it's easy to misread it.
Anyway, repeat to explore the essential shape of the structure and place real variables where you want to pull out values:
[_, [_, _]] = A.
[_, _] = A.
[_, MyTupleList] = A. %% let's grab this tuple list
[{MyAtom,b}, [{c,d}, MyTuple]] = A. %% or maybe we want this atom and tuple
That's how I efficiently dissect and pattern match complex data structures.
However, I don't know what you're doing. I'd be inclined to have a wrapper function that uses KVC to pull out exactly what you need and then distributes to helper functions from there for each type of structure.

If I understand you correctly you want to pattern match some large datastructures of unknown formatting.
Example:
Input: {a, b} {a,b,c,d} {a,[],{},{b,c}}
function({A, B}) -> do_something;
function({A, B, C, D}) when is_atom(B) -> do_something_else;
function({A, B, C, D}) when is_list(B) -> more_doing.
The generic answer is of course that it is undecidable from just data to know how to categorize that data.
First you should probably be aware of iolists. They are created by functions such as io_lib:format/2 and in many other places in the code.
One example is that
[["SIP",47,"2",46,"0"],32,"407",32,"Proxy Authentication Required","\r\n"]
will print as
SIP/2.0 407 Proxy Authentication Required
So, I'd start with flattening all those lists, using a function such as
flatten_io(List) when is_list(List) ->
Flat = lists:map(fun flatten_io/1, List),
maybe_flatten(Flat);
flatten_io(Tuple) when is_tuple(Tuple) ->
list_to_tuple([flatten_io(Element) || Element <- tuple_to_list(Tuple)];
flatten_io(Other) -> Other.
maybe_flatten(L) when is_list(L) ->
case lists:all(fun(Ch) when Ch > 0 andalso Ch < 256 -> true;
(List) when is_list(List) ->
lists:all(fun(X) -> X > 0 andalso X < 256 end, List);
(_) -> false
end, L) of
true -> lists:flatten(L);
false -> L
end.
(Caveat: completely untested and quite inefficient. Will also crash for inproper lists, but you shouldn't have those in your data structures anyway.)
On second thought, I can't help you. Any data structure that uses the atom 'COMMA' for a comma in a string should be taken out and shot.
You should be able to flatten those things as well and start to get a view of what you are looking at.
I know that this is not a complete answer. Hope it helps.

Its hard to recommend something for handling this.
Transforming all the structures in a more sane and also more minimal format looks like its worth it. This depends mainly on the similarities in these structures.
Rather than having a special function for each of the 100 there must be some automatic reformatting that can be done, maybe even put the parts in records.
Once you have records its much easier to write functions for it since you don't need to know the actual number of elements in the record. More important: your code won't break when the number of elements changes.
To summarize: make a barrier between your code and the insanity of these structures by somehow sanitizing them by the most generic code possible. It will be probably a mix of generic reformatting with structure speicific stuff.
As an example already visible in this struct: the 'name-addr' tuples look like they have a uniform structure. So you can recurse over your structures (over all elements of tuples and lists) and match for "things" that have a common structure like 'name-addr' and replace these with nice records.
In order to help you eyeballing you can write yourself helper functions along this example:
eyeball(List) when is_list(List) ->
io:format("List with length ~b\n", [length(List)]);
eyeball(Tuple) when is_tuple(Tuple) ->
io:format("Tuple with ~b elements\n", [tuple_size(Tuple)]).
So you would get output like this:
2> eyeball({a,b,c}).
Tuple with 3 elements
ok
3> eyeball([a,b,c]).
List with length 3
ok
expansion of this in a useful tool for your use is left as an exercise. You could handle multiple levels by recursing over the elements and indenting the output.

Use pattern matching and functions that work on lists to extract only what you need.
Look at http://www.erlang.org/doc/man/lists.html:
keyfind, keyreplace, L = [H|T], ...

Resources