Ok, I thought there would be enough CS majors on here to check my pseudo code for my recursive descent parser. I developed it from this BNF
EXP ::= EXP + TERM | EXP - TERM | TERM
TERM ::= TERM * FACTOR | TERM/FACTOR | FACTOR
FACTOR ::= (EXP) | DIGIT
DIGIT ::= 0|1|2|3
Here's the pseudo code:
procedure exp()
term()
if token == ‘+’
match(‘+’)
term()
elseif token == ‘-‘
match(‘-‘)
term()
else
break
procedure term()
factor()
if token == ‘*’
match(‘*’)
factor()
elseif token == ‘/’
match(‘/’)
factor()
else
break
procedure factor()
if token == ‘(‘
match(‘(‘)
exp()
match(‘)’)
else
digit()
procedure digit()
if token == ‘0’
match(‘0’)
elseif token == ‘1’
match(‘1’)
elseif token == ‘2’
match(‘2’)
else
match(‘3’)
match(t)
if token == t
advancetokenpointer
else
error
Is this correct? I was thinking I may need to have a return in each procedure, and I'm not sure of my procedure correctness either. Maybe include end procedure too? Anyways, thanks a lot! :-)
You are half way there. Especifically, you are not accounting for the left-recursive parts of the grammar, as in "EXP ::= EXP...", or "TERM ::= TERM...".
Recursive descent is not well suited for left-recursion anyway, but fortunatelly there are standard transformations you can perform in the grammar that will eliminate this kind of left recursion. As an example, the following grammar:
A ::= A x B | B
could be coded like this:
procedure A()
B()
repeat
if token == 'x'
match('x')
B()
else
break
Moreover, the code for factor is not following the grammar correctly. Notice that in the first alternative, EXP is called recursivelly (this is a kind of recursion that Recursive Descent has no problem with) and you are calling factor instead. Also, you are matching the right parenthesis as if it was optional, while it is actually required. This same problem exists in the code for DIGIT. If neither 0, 1 or 2 match, 3 must match.
Related
I was having some trouble with Bison creating an operator as such:
<- = identity postfix operator with a low precedence to force evaluation of what's on the left first, e.g. 1+2<-*3 (equivalent (1+2)*3) as well as -> which is a prefix operator which does the same thing but to the right.
I was not able to get the syntax to work properly and tested with Python using - not False, which resulted in a syntax error (in Python, - has a greater precedence than not). However, this is not a problem in C or C++, where - and !/not have the same precedence.
Of course, the difference in precedence has nothing to do with the relationship between the 2 operators, only a relationship with other operators that result in the relative precedences between them.
Why is chaining prefix or postfix operators with different precedences a problem when parsing and how can implement the <- and -> operators while still having higher-precedence operators like !, ++, NOT, etc.?
Obligatory Bison (this pattern is repeated for all operators, where copy has greater precedence than post_unary):
post_unary:
copy
| post_unary "++"
| post_unary "--"
| post_unary '!'
;
Chaining operators in this category, e.g. x ! -- ! works fine syntactically.
Ok, let me suggest a possible erroneous grammar based on your sketch:
low_postfix:
mid_infix
| low_postfix "<-"
mid_infix:
high_postfix
| mid_infix '+' high_postfix
high_postfix:
term
| high_postfix "++"
term:
ID
'(' expr ')'
It should be clear just looking at those productions that var <- ++ is not part of the language. The only things that can be used as an operand to ++ are terms and other applications of ++. var <- is neither of these things.
On the other hand, var ++ <- is fine, because the operand to <- can be a mid_infix which can be a high_postfix which is an application of the ++ operator.
If the intention were to allow both of those postfix sequences, then that grammar is incorrect.
A version of that cascade is present in the Python grammar (albeit using prefix operators) which is why not - False is OK, but - not False is a syntax error. I'm reluctant to call that a bug because it may have been intentional. (Really, neither of those expressions makes much sense.) We could disagree about the value of such an intention but not on SO, which prefers to avoid opinionated discussions.
Note that what we might call "strict precedence" in this grammar and the Python grammar is by no means restricted to combinations of unary operators. Here's another one which you have likely never tried:
$ python3 -c 'print(41 + not False)'
File "<string>", line 1
print(41 + not False)
^
SyntaxError: invalid syntax
So, how can we fix that?
On some level, it would be nice to be able to just write an unambiguous grammar which conveyed our intention. And it is certainly possible to write an unambiguous grammar, which would convey the intention to bison. But it's at least an open question as to whether it would convey anything to a human reader, because the massive clutter of multiple rules necessary in order to keep track of what is and is not an acceptable grouping would be pretty daunting.
On the other hand, it's dead simple to do with bison/yacc precedence declarations. We just list the operators in order, and the parser generator resolves all the ambiguities accordingly. [See Note 1 below]
Here's a similar grammar to the above, with precedence declarations. (I left the actions in place in case you want to play with it, although it's by no means a Reproducible Example; the infrastructure it relies upon is much bigger than the grammar itself, and of little use to anyone other than me. So you'll have to define the three functions and fill in some of the bison type declarations. Or just delete the AST functions and use your own.)
%left ','
%precedence "<-"
%precedence "->"
%left '+'
%left '*'
%precedence NEG
%right "++" '('
%%
expr: expr ',' expr { $$ = make_binop(OP_LIST, $1, $3); }
| "<-" expr { $$ = make_unop(OP_LARR, $2); }
| expr "->" { $$ = make_unop(OP_RARR, $1); }
| expr '+' expr { $$ = make_binop(OP_ADD, $1, $3); }
| expr '*' expr { $$ = make_binop(OP_MUL, $1, $3); }
| '-' expr %prec NEG { $$ = make_unop(OP_NEG, $2); }
| expr '(' expr ')' %prec '(' { $$ = make_binop(OP_CALL, $1, $3); }
| "++" expr { $$ = make_unop(OP_PREINC, $2); }
| expr "++" { $$ = make_unop(OP_POSTINC, $1); }
| VALUE { $$ = make_ident($1); }
| '(' expr ')' { $$ = $2; }
A couple of notes:
I used %prec NEG on the unary minus production in order to separate that production from the subtraction production. I also used a %prec declaration to modify the precedence of the call production (the default would be ')'), although in this particular case that's unnecessary. It is necessary to put '(' into the precedence list, though. ( is the lookahead symbol which is used in precedence comparisons.
For many unary operators, I used bison %precedence declaration in the precedence list, rather than %right or %left. Really, there is no such thing as associativity with unary operators, so I think that it's more self-documenting to use %precedence, which doesn't resolve conflicts involving reductions and shifts in the same precedence level. However, even though there is no such thing as associativity between unary operators, the nature of the precedence resolution algorithm is that you can put prefix operators and postfix operators in the same precedence level and choose whether the postfix or prefix operators have priority by using %right or %left, respectively. %right is almost always correct. I did that with ++, because I was a bit lazy by the time I got to that point.
This does "work" (I think). It certainly resolves all the conflicts; bison happily produces a parser without warnings. And the tests that I tried worked at least as I expected them to:
? a++->
=> [-> [++/post a]]
? a->++
=> [++/post [-> a]]
? 3*f(a)+2
=> [+ [* 3 [CALL f a]] 2]
? 3*f(a)->+2
=> [+ [-> [* 3 [CALL f a]]] 2]
? 2+<-f(a)*3
=> [+ 2 [<- [* [CALL f a] 3]]]
? 2+<-f(a)*3->
=> [+ 2 [<- [-> [* [CALL f a] 3]]]]
But there are some expressions where the operator precedence, while "correct", might not be easily explained to a novice user. For example, although the arrow operators look somewhat like parentheses, they don't group that way. Furthermore, the decision as to which of the two operators has higher precedence seems to me to be totally arbitrary (and indeed I might have done it differently from what you expected). Consider:
? <-2*f(a)->+3
=> [<- [+ [-> [* 2 [CALL f a]]] 3]]
? <-2+f(a)->*3
=> [<- [* [-> [+ 2 [CALL f a]]] 3]]
? 2+<-f(a)->*3
=> [+ 2 [<- [* [-> [CALL f a]] 3]]]
There's also something a bit odd about how the arrow operators override normal operator precedence, so that you can't just drop them into a formula without changing its meaning:
? 2+f(a)*3
=> [+ 2 [* [CALL f a] 3]]
? 2+f(a)->*3
=> [* [-> [+ 2 [CALL f a]]] 3]
If that's your intention, fine. It's your language.
Note that there are operator precedence problems which are not quite so easy to solve by just listing operators in precedence order. Sometimes it would be convenient for a binary operator to have different binding power on the left- and right-hand sides.
A classic (but perhaps controversial) case is the assignment operator, if it is an operator. Assignment must associate to the right (because parsing a = b = 0 as (a = b) = 0 would be ridiculous), and the usual expectation is that it greedily accepts as much to the right as possible. If assignment had consistent precedence, then it would also accept as much to the left as possible, which seems a bit strange, at least to me. If a = 2 + b = 7 is meaningful, my intuitions say that its meaning should be a = (2 + (b = 7)) [Note 2]. That would require differential precedence, which is a bit complicated but not unheard of. C solves this problem by restricting the left-hand side of the assignment operators to (syntactic) lvalues, which cannot be binary operator expressions. But in C++, it really does mean a = ((2 + b) = 7), which is semantically valid if 2 + b has been overloaded by a function which returns a reference.
Notes
Precedence declarations do not really add any power to the parser generator. The languages it can produce a parser for are exactly the same languages; it produces the same sort of parsing machine (a pushdown automaton); and it is at least theoretically possible to take that pushdown automaton and reverse engineer a grammar out of it. (In practice, the grammars produced by this process are usually monstrous. But they exist.)
All that the precedence declarations do is resolve parsing conflicts (typically in an ambiguous grammar) according to some user-supplied rules. So it's worth asking why it's so much simpler with precedence declarations than by writing an unambiguous grammar.
The simple hand-waving answer is that precedence rules only apply when there is a conflict. If the parser is in a state where only one action is possible, that's the action which remains, regardless of what the precedence rules might say. In a simple expression grammar, an infix operator followed by a prefix operator is not at all ambiguous: the prefix operator must be shifted, because there is no reduce action for a partial sequence ending with an infix operator.
But when we're writing a grammar, we have to specify explicitly what constructs are possible at each point in the grammar, which we usually do by defining a bunch of non-terminals, each corresponding to some parsing state. An unambiguous grammar for expressions already has split the expression non-terminal into a cascading series of non-terminals, one for each operator precedence value. But unary operators do not have the same binding power on both sides (since, as noted above, one side of the unary operator cannot take an operand). That means that a binary operator could well be able to accept a unary operator for one of its operands, and not be able to accept the same unary operator for its other operand. Which in turn means that we need to split all of our non-terminals again, corresponding to whether the non-terminal appears on the left or the right side of a binary operator.
That's a lot of work, and it's really easy to make a mistake. If you're lucky, the mistake will result in a parsing conflict; but equally it could result in the grammar not being able to recognise a particular construct which you would never think of trying, but which some irate language user feels is an absolute necessity. (Like 41 + not False)
It's possible that my intuitions have been permanently marked by learning APL at a very early age. In APL, all operators associate to the right, basically without any precedence differences.
I am trying to create grammar for a naive top-down recursive parser. As I understand the basic idea is to write a list of functions (top-down) that correspond to the productions in the grammar. Each function can call other functions (recursive).
The rules for a list include any number of numbers, but they must be separated by commas.
Here's an example of grammar I came up with:
LIST ::= NUM | LIST "," NUM
NUM ::= [0-9]+
Apparently this is incorrect, so my question is: why is this grammar not able to be parsed by a naive top-down recursive descent parser? What would be an example of a valid solution?
The issue is that for a LL(1) recursive decent parser such as this:
For any i and j (where j ≠ i) there is no symbol that can start both an instance of Wi and an instance of Wj.
This is because otherwise the parser will have errors knowing what path to take.
The correct solution can be obtained by left-factoring, it would be:
LIST ::= NUM REST
REST ::= "" | "," NUM
NUM ::= [0-9]+
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.
I have a working calculator apart from one thing: unary operator '-'.
It has to be evaluated and dealt with in 2 difference cases:
When there is some expression further like so -(3+3)
When there isn't: -3
For case 1, I want to get a postfix output 3 3 + -
For case 2, I want to get just correct value of this token in this field, so for example in Z10 it's 10-3 = 7.
My current idea:
E: ...
| '-' NUM %prec NEGATIVE { $$ = correct(-yylval); appendNumber($$); }
| '-' E %prec NEGATIVE { $$ = correct(P-$2); strcat(rpn, "-"); }
| NUM { appendNumber(yylval); $$ = correct(yylval); }
Where NUM is a token, but obviously compiler says there is a confict reduce/reduce as E can also be a NUM in some cases, altough it works I want to get rid of the compilator warning.. and I ran out of ideas.
It has to be evaluated and dealt with in 2 difference cases:
No it doesn't. The cases are not distinct.
Both - E and - NUM are incorrect. The correct grammar would be something like:
primary
: NUM
| '-' primary
| '+' primary /* for completeness */
| '(' expression ')'
;
Normally, this should be implemented as two rules (pseudocode, I don't know bison syntax):
This is the likely rule for the 'terminal' element of an expression. Naturally, a parenthesized expression leads to a recursion to the top rule:
Element => Number
| '(' Expression ')'
The unary minus (and also the unary plus!) are just on one level up in the stack of productions (grammar rules):
Term => '-' Element
| '+' Element
| Element
Naturally, this can unbundle into all possible combinations such as '-' Number, '-' '(' Expression ')', likewise with '+' and without any unary operator at all.
Suppose we want addition / subtraction, and multiplication / division. Then the rest of the grammar would look like this:
Expression => Expression '+' MultiplicationExpr
| Expression '-' MultiplicationExpr
| MultiplicationExpr
MultiplicationExpr => MultiplicationExpr '*' Term
| MultiplicationExpr '/' Term
| Term
For the sake of completeness:
Terminals:
Number
Non-terminals:
Expression
Element
Term
MultiplicationExpr
Number, which is a terminal, shall match a regexp like this [0-9]+. In other words, it does not parse a minus sign — it's always a positive integer (or zero). Negative integers are calculated by matching a '-' Number sequence of tokens.
I've been trying to tackle a seemingly simple shift/reduce conflict with no avail. Naturally, the parser works fine if I just ignore the conflict, but I'd feel much safer if I reorganized my rules. Here, I've simplified a relatively complex grammar to the single conflict:
statement_list
: statement_list statement
|
;
statement
: lvalue '=' expression
| function
;
lvalue
: IDENTIFIER
| '(' expression ')'
;
expression
: lvalue
| function
;
function
: IDENTIFIER '(' ')'
;
With the verbose option in yacc, I get this output file describing the state with the mentioned conflict:
state 2
lvalue -> IDENTIFIER . (rule 5)
function -> IDENTIFIER . '(' ')' (rule 9)
'(' shift, and go to state 7
'(' [reduce using rule 5 (lvalue)]
$default reduce using rule 5 (lvalue)
Thank you for any assistance.
The problem is that this requires 2-token lookahead to know when it has reached the end of a statement. If you have input of the form:
ID = ID ( ID ) = ID
after parser shifts the second ID (lookahead is (), it doesn't know whether that's the end of the first statement (the ( is the beginning of a second statement), or this is a function. So it shifts (continuing to parse a function), which is the wrong thing to do with the example input above.
If you extend function to allow an argument inside the parenthesis and expression to allow actual expressions, things become worse, as the lookahead required is unbounded -- the parser needs to get all the way to the second = to determine that this is not a function call.
The basic problem here is that there's no helper punctuation to aid the parser in finding the end of a statement. Since text that is the beginning of a valid statement can also appear in the middle of a valid statement, finding statement boundaries is hard.