Parse stacked comparison expression into logical Conjunction Tree with antlr3 - parsing

I have run into a problem, when i tried to parse a stacked arithmetic comparison expression:
"1<2<3<4<5"
into a logical Tree of Conjunctions:
CONJUNCTION(COMPARISON(1,2,<) COMPARISON(2,3,<) COMPARISON(3,4,<) COMPARISON(4,5,<))
Is there a way in Antlr3 Tree Rewrite rules to iterate through matched tokens and create the result Tree from them in the target language (I'm using java)? So i could make COMPARISON nodes from element x, x-1 of matched 'addition' tokens. I know i can reference the last result of a rule but that way i'd only get nested COMPARISON rules, that's not what i wish for.
/This is how i approached the problem, sadly it doesn't do what i would like to do yet of course.
fragment COMPARISON:;
operator
:
('<'|'>'|'<='|'>='|'=='|'!=')
;
comparison
#init{boolean secondpart = false;}
:
e=addition (operator {secondpart=true;} k=addition)*
-> {secondpart}? ^(COMPARISON ^(VALUES addition*) ^(OPERATORS operator*))
-> $e
;
//Right now what this does is:
tree=(COMPARISON (VALUES (INTEGERVALUE (VALUE 1)) (INTEGERVALUE (VALUE 2)) (INTEGERVALUE (VALUE 3)) (INTEGERVALUE (VALUE 4)) (INTEGERVALUE (VALUE 5))) (OPERATORS < < < <))
//The label for the CONJUNCTION TreeNode that i would like to use:
fragment CONJUNCTION:;

I came up with a nasty solution to this problem by writing actual tree building java code:
grammar testgrammarforcomparison;
options {
language = Java;
output = AST;
}
tokens
{
CONJUNCTION;
COMPARISON;
OPERATOR;
ADDITION;
}
WS
:
('\t' | '\f' | ' ' | '\r' | '\n' )+
{$channel = HIDDEN;}
;
comparison
#init
{
List<Object> additions = new ArrayList<Object>();
List<Object> operators = new ArrayList<Object>();
boolean secondpart = false;
}
:
(( e=addition {additions.add(e.getTree());} ) ( op=operator k=addition {additions.add(k.getTree()); operators.add(op.getTree()); secondpart = true;} )*)
{
if(secondpart)
{
root_0 = (Object)adaptor.nil();
Object root_1 = (Object)adaptor.nil();
root_1 = (Object)adaptor.becomeRoot(
(Object)adaptor.create(CONJUNCTION, "CONJUNCTION")
, root_1);
Object lastaddition = additions.get(0);
for(int i=1;i<additions.size();i++)
{
Object root_2 = (Object)adaptor.nil();
root_2 = (Object)adaptor.becomeRoot(
(Object)adaptor.create(COMPARISON, "COMPARISON")
, root_2);
adaptor.addChild(root_2, additions.get(i-1));
adaptor.addChild(root_2, operators.get(i-1));
adaptor.addChild(root_2, additions.get(i));
adaptor.addChild(root_1, root_2);
}
adaptor.addChild(root_0, root_1);
}
else
{
root_0 = (Object)adaptor.nil();
adaptor.addChild(root_0, e.getTree());
}
}
;
/** lowercase letters */
fragment LOWCHAR
: 'a'..'z';
/** uppercase letters */
fragment HIGHCHAR
: 'A'..'Z';
/** numbers */
fragment DIGIT
: '0'..'9';
fragment LETTER
: LOWCHAR
| HIGHCHAR
;
IDENTIFIER
:
LETTER (LETTER|DIGIT)*
;
addition
:
IDENTIFIER ->^(ADDITION IDENTIFIER)
;
operator
:
('<'|'>') ->^(OPERATOR '<'* '>'*)
;
parse
:
comparison EOF
;
For input
"DATA1 < DATA2 > DATA3"
This outputs tree such as:
If you guys know any better solutions, please tell me about them

Related

Breaking head over how to get position of token with a rule - ANTLR4 / grammar

I'm writing a little grammar using ANLTR, and I have a rule like this:
operation : OPERATION (IDENT | EXPR) ',' (IDENT | EXPR);
...
OPERATION : 'ADD' | 'SUB' | 'MUL' | 'DIV' ;
IDENT : [a-z]+;
EXPR : INTEGER | FLOAT;
INTEGER : [0-9]+ | '-'[0-9]+
FLOAT : [0-9]+'.'[0-9]+ | '-'[0-9]+'.'[0-9]+
Now in the listener inside Java, how do I determine in the case of such a scenario where an operation consist of both IDENT and EXPR the order in which they appear?
Obviously the rule can match both
ADD 10, d
or
ADD d, 10
But in the listener for the rule, generated by ANTLR4, if there is both IDENT() and EXPR() how to get their order, since I want to assign the left and right operands correctly.
Been breaking my head over this, is there any simple way or should I rewrite the rule itself? The ctx.getTokens () requires me to give the token type, which kind of defeats the purpose, since I cannot get the sequence of the tokens in the rule, if I specify their type.
You can do it like this:
operation : OPERATION lhs=(IDENT | EXPR) ',' rhs=(IDENT | EXPR);
and then inside your listener, do this:
#Override
public void enterOperation(TParser.OperationContext ctx) {
if (ctx.lhs.getType() == TParser.IDENT) {
// left hand side is an identifier
} else {
// left hand side is an expression
}
// check `rhs` the same way
}
where TParser comes from the grammar file T.g4. Change this accordingly.
Another solution would be something like this:
operation
: OPERATION ident_or_expr ',' ident_or_expr
;
ident_or_expr
: IDENT
| EXPR
;
and then in your listener:
#Override
public void enterOperation(TParser.OperationContext ctx) {
Double lhs = findValueFor(ctx.ident_or_expr().get(0));
Double rhs = findValueFor(ctx.ident_or_expr().get(1));
...
}
private Double findValueFor(TParser.Ident_or_exprContext ctx) {
if (ctx.IDENT() != null) {
// it's an identifier
} else {
// it's an expression
}
}

Abstract Syntax Tree for Source Code including Expressions

I am building a new simple programming language (just to learn how compilers work in my free time).
I have already built a lexer which can tokenize my source code into lexemes.
However, I am now stuck on how to form an Abstract Syntax Tree from the tokens, where the source code might contain an expression (with operator precedence).
For simplicity, I shall include only 4 basic operators: +, -, /, and * in addition to brackets (). Operator precedence will follow BODMAS rule.
I realize I might be able to convert the expression from infix to prefix/postfix, form the tree and substitute it.
However, I am not sure if that is possible. Even if it is possible, I am not sure how efficient it might be or how difficult it might be to implement.
Is there some trivial way to form the tree in-place without having to convert to prefix/postfix first?
I came across the Shunting Yard algorithm which seems to do this. However, I found it to be quite a complicated algorithm. Is there something simpler, or should I go ahead with implementing the Shunting Yard algorithm?
Currently, the following program is tokenized by my lexer as follows:
I am demonstrating using a Java program for syntax familiarity.
Source Program:
public class Hello
{
public static void main(String[] args)
{
int a = 5;
int b = 6;
int c = 7;
int r = a + b * c;
System.out.println(r);
}
}
Lexer output:
public
class
Hello
{
public
static
void
main
(
String
[
]
args
)
{
int
a
=
5
;
int
b
=
6
;
int
c
=
7
;
int
r
=
a
+
b
*
c
;
System
.
out
.
println
(
r
)
;
}
}
// I know this might look ugly that I use a global variable ret to return parsed subtrees
// but please bear with it, I got used to this for various performance/usability reasons
var ret, tokens
function get_precedence(op) {
// this is an essential part, cannot parse an expression without the precedence checker
if (op == '*' || op == '/' || op == '%') return 14
if (op == '+' || op == '-') return 13
if (op == '<=' || op == '>=' || op == '<' || op == '>') return 11
if (op == '==' || op == '!=') return 10
if (op == '^') return 8
if (op == '&&') return 6
if (op == '||') return 5
return 0
}
function parse_primary(pos) {
// in the real language primary is almost everything that can be on the sides of +
// but here we only handle numbers detected with the JavaScript 'typeof' keyword
if (typeof tokens[pos] == 'number') {
ret = {
type: 'number',
value: tokens[pos],
}
return pos + 1
}
else {
return undefined
}
}
function parse_operator(pos) {
// let's just reuse the function we already wrote insted of creating another huge 'if'
if (get_precedence(tokens[pos]) != 0) {
ret = {
type: 'operator',
operator: tokens[pos],
}
return pos + 1
}
else {
return undefined
}
}
function parse_expr(pos) {
var stack = [], code = [], n, op, next, precedence
pos = parse_primary(pos)
if (pos == undefined) {
// error, an expression can only start with a primary
return undefined
}
stack.push(ret)
while (true) {
n = pos
pos = parse_operator(pos)
if (pos == undefined) break
op = ret
pos = parse_primary(pos)
if (pos == undefined) break
next = ret
precedence = get_precedence(op.operator)
while (stack.length > 0 && get_precedence(stack[stack.length - 1].operator) >= precedence) {
code.push(stack.pop())
}
stack.push(op)
code.push(next)
}
while(stack.length > 0) {
code.push(stack.pop())
}
if (code.length == 1) ret = code[0]
else ret = {
type: 'expr',
stack: code,
}
return n
}
function main() {
tokens = [1, '+', 2, '*', 3]
var pos = parse_expr(0)
if (pos) {
console.log('parsed expression AST')
console.log(ret)
}
else {
console.log('unable to parse anything')
}
}
main()
Here is your bare-bones implementation of shunting yard expression parsing. This is written in JavaScript. This is as minimalistic and simple as you can get. Tokenizing is left off for brevity, you give the parse the array of tokens (you call them lexemes).
The actual Shunting Yard is the parse_expr function. This is the "classic" implementation that uses the stack, this is my preference, some people prefer functional recursion.
Functions that parse various syntax elements are usually called "parselets". here we have three of them, one for expression, others are for primary and operator. If a parselet detects the corresponding syntax construction at the position pos it will return the next position right after the construct, and the construct itself in AST form is returned via the global variable ret. If the parselet does not find what it expects it returns undefined.
It is now trivially simple to add support for parens grouping (, just extend parse_primary with if (parse_group())... else if (parse_number())... etc. In the meantime your parse_primary will grow real big supporting various things, prefix operators, function calls, etc.

Antlr4: How can I both hide and use Tokens in a grammar

I'm parsing a script language that defines two types of statements; control statements and non control statements. Non control statements are always ended with ';', while control statements may end with ';' or EOL ('\n'). A part of the grammar looks like this:
script
: statement* EOF
;
statement
: control_statement
| no_control_statement
;
control_statement
: if_then_control_statement
;
if_then_control_statement
: IF expression THEN end_control_statment
( statement ) *
( ELSEIF expression THEN end_control_statment ( statement )* )*
( ELSE end_control_statment ( statement )* )?
END IF end_control_statment
;
no_control_statement
: sleep_statement
;
sleep_statement
: SLEEP expression END_STATEMENT
;
end_control_statment
: END_STATEMENT
| EOL
;
END_STATEMENT
: ';'
;
ANY_SPACE
: ( LINE_SPACE | EOL ) -> channel(HIDDEN)
;
EOL
: [\n\r]+
;
LINE_SPACE
: [ \t]+
;
In all other aspects of the script language, I never care about EOL so I use the normal lexer rules to hide white space.
This works fine in all cases but the cases where I need to use a EOL to find a termination of a control statement, but with the grammar above, all EOL is hidden and not used in the control statement rules.
Is there a way to change my grammar so that I can skip all EOL but the ones needed to terminate parts of my control statements?
Found one way to handle this.
The idea is to divert EOL into one hidden channel and the other stuff I donĀ“t want to see in another hidden channel (like spaces and comments). Then I use some code to backtrack the tokens when an EOL is supposed to show up and examine the previous tokens channels (since they already have been consumed). If I find something on EOL channel before I run into something from the ordinary channel, then it is ok.
It looks like this:
Changed the lexer rules:
#lexer::members {
public static int EOL_CHANNEL = 1;
public static int OTHER_CHANNEL = 2;
}
...
EOL
: '\r'? '\n' -> channel(EOL_CHANNEL)
;
LINE_SPACE
: [ \t]+ -> channel(OTHER_CHANNEL)
;
I also diverted all other HIDDEN channels (comments) to the OTHER_CHANNEL.
Then I changed the rule end_control_statment:
end_control_statment
: END_STATEMENT
| { isEOLPrevious() }?
;
and added
#parser::members {
public static int EOL_CHANNEL = 1;
public static int OTHER_CHANNEL = 2;
boolean isEOLPrevious()
{
int idx = getCurrentToken().getTokenIndex();
int ch;
do
{
ch = getTokenStream().get(--idx).getChannel();
}
while (ch == OTHER_CHANNEL);
// Channel 1 is only carrying EOL, no need to check token itself
return (ch == EOL_CHANNEL);
}
}
One could stick to the ordinary hidden channel but then there is a need to both track channel and tokens while backtracking so this is maybe a bit easier...
Hope this could help someone else dealing with these kind of issues...

Antlr 4: Method for switching modes in parser

I'm trying to build a MVS JCL recognizer using Antlr4. The general endeavour is going reasonably well, but I am having trouble handling the MVS equivalent of *nix "here docs" (inline files). I cannot use lexer modes to flip-flop between JCL and here-doc content, so I am looking for alternatives that I might use a parser level.
IBM MVS allows the use of "instream datasets", similar to *nix here-docs.
Example:
This defines a three-line inline file, terminated by the characters "ZZ" and accessible to a referencing program using the label "ANYNAME":
//ANYNAME DD *,SYMBOLS=(JCLONLY,FILEREF),DLM=ZZ
HEREDOC TEXT 1
HEREDOC TEXT 2
HEREDOC TEXT 3
ZZ
//NEXTFILE DD ...stuff...
ANYNAME is a handle by which a program can access the here-doc content.
DD * is mandatory and informs MVS that a here-doc follows.
SYMBOLS=(JCLONLY,FILEREF) is optional detail relating to how the here-doc is handled.
DLM=ZZ is also optional and defines the here-doc terminator (default terminator = /*).
I need to be able, at parser level, to process the //ANYNAME... line (I have that bit), then to read the here-doc content until I find the (possibly non-default) here-doc terminator. In a sense, this looks like a lexer modes opportunity- but at this point I am working within the parser and I do not have a fixed terminator to work with.
I need guidance on how to switch modes to handle my here-doc, then switch back again to continue processing my JCL.
A hugely abridged version of my grammar follows (the actual grammar, so far, is about 2,200 lines and is incomplete).
Thanks for any insights. I appreciate your help, comments and suggestions.
/* the ddstmt parser rule should be considered the main entry point. It handles (at least):
//ANYNAME DD *,SYMBOLS=(JCLONLY,FILEREF),DLM=ZZ
and // DD *,DLM=ZZ
and //ANYNAME DD *,SYMBOLS=EXECSYS
and //ANYNAME DD *
I need to be able process the above line as JCL then read the here-doc content...
"HEREDOC TEXT 1"
"HEREDOC TEXT 2"
"HEREDOC TEXT 3"
as either a single token or a series of tokens, then, after reading the here-doc
delimiter...
"ZZ"
, go back to processing regular JCL again.
*/
/* lexer rules: */
LINECOMMENT3 : SLASH SLASH STAR ;
DSLASH : SLASH SLASH ;
INSTREAMTERMINATE : SLASH STAR ;
SLASH : '/' ;
STAR : '*' ;
OPAREN : '(' ;
CPAREN : ')' ;
COMMA : ',' ;
KWDD : 'DD' ;
KWDLM : 'DLM' ;
KWSYMBOLS : 'SYMBOLS' ;
KWDATA : 'DATA' ;
SYMBOLSTARGET : 'JCLONLY'|'EXECSYS'|'CNVTSYS' ;
EQ : '=' ;
APOST : '\'' ;
fragment
SPC : ' ' ;
SPCS : SPC+ ;
NL : ('\r'? '\n') ;
UNQUOTEDTEXT : (APOST APOST|~[=\'\"\r\n\t,/() ])+ ;
/* parser rules: */
label : unquotedtext
;
separator : SPCS
;
/* handle crazy JCL comment rules - start */
partcomment : SPCS partcommenttext NL
;
partcommenttext : ((~NL+?)?)
;
linecomment : LINECOMMENT3 linecommenttext NL
;
linecommenttext : ((~NL+?)?)
;
postcommaeol : ( (partcomment|NL) linecomment* DSLASH SPCS )?
;
poststmteol : ( (partcomment|NL) linecomment* )?
;
/* handle crazy JCL comment rules - end */
ddstmt : DSLASH (label|) separator KWDD separator dddecl
;
dddecl : ...
| ddinstreamdecl
| ...
;
ddinstreamdecl : (STAR|KWDATA) poststmteol ddinstreamopts
;
ddinstreamopts : ( COMMA postcommaeol ddinstreamopt poststmteol )*
;
ddinstreamopt : ( ddinstreamdelim
| symbolsdecl
)
;
ddinstreamdelim : KWDLM EQ unquotedtext
;
symbolsdecl : KWSYMBOLS EQ symbolsdef
;
symbolsdef : OPAREN symbolstarget ( COMMA symbolsloggingdd )? CPAREN
| symbolstarget
;
symbolstarget : SYMBOLSTARGET
;
symbolsloggingdd : unquotedtext
;
unquotedtext : UNQUOTEDTEXT
;
Your lexer needs to be able to tokenize the entire document prior to the beginning of the parsing operation. Any attempt to control the lexer from within the parser is a recipe for endless nightmares down the road. The following fragments of a PHP Lexer show how predicates can be used in combination with lexer modes to detect the end of a string with a user-defined delimiter. The key part is recording the start delimiter, and then checking tokens which start at the beginning of the line against it.
PHP_NOWDOC_START
: '<<<\'' PHP_IDENTIFIER '\'' {_input.La(1) == '\r' || _input.La(1) == '\n'}?
-> pushMode(PhpNowDoc)
;
mode PhpNowDoc;
PhpNowDoc_NEWLINE : NEWLINE -> type(NEWLINE);
PHP_NOWDOC_END
: {_input.La(-1) == '\n'}?
PHP_IDENTIFIER ';'?
{CheckHeredocEnd(_input.La(1), Text);}?
-> popMode
;
PHP_NOWDOC_TEXT
: ~[\r\n]+
;
The identifier is actually recorded in a custom override of NextToken() (shown here for a C# target):
public override IToken NextToken()
{
IToken token = base.NextToken();
switch (token.Type)
{
case PHP_NOWDOC_START:
// <<<'identifier'
_heredocIdentifier = token.Text.Substring(3).Trim('\'');
break;
case PHP_NOWDOC_END:
_heredocIdentifier = null;
break;
default:
break;
}
return token;
}
private bool CheckHeredocEnd(int la1, string text)
{
// identifier
// - or -
// identifier;
bool semi = text[text.Length - 1] == ';';
string identifier = semi ? text.Substring(0, text.Length - 1) : text;
return string.Equals(identifier, HeredocIdentifier, StringComparison.Ordinal);
}

ANTLR rule to consume fixed number of characters

I am trying to write an ANTLR grammar for the PHP serialize() format, and everything seems to work fine, except for strings. The problem is that the format of serialized strings is :
s:6:"length";
In terms of regexes, a rule like s:(\d+):".{\1}"; would describe this format if only backreferences were allowed in the "number of matches" count (but they are not).
But I cannot find a way to express this for either a lexer or parser grammar: the whole idea is to make the number of characters read depend on a backreference describing the number of characters to read, as in Fortran Hollerith constants (i.e. 6HLength), not on a string delimiter.
This example from the ANTLR grammar for Fortran seems to point the way, but I don't see how. Note that my target language is Python, while most of the doc and examples are for Java:
// numeral literal
ICON {int counter=0;} :
/* other alternatives */
// hollerith
'h' ({counter>0}? NOTNL {counter--;})* {counter==0}?
{
$setType(HOLLERITH);
String str = $getText;
str = str.replaceFirst("([0-9])+h", "");
$setText(str);
}
/* more alternatives */
;
Since input like s:3:"a"b"; is valid, you can't define a String token in your lexer, unless the first and last double quote are always the start and end of your string. But I guess this is not the case.
So, you'll need a lexer rule like this:
SString
: 's:' Int ':"' ( . )* '";'
;
In other words: match a s:, then an integer value followed by :" then one or more characters that can be anything, ending with ";. But you need to tell the lexer to stop consuming when the value Int is not reached. You can do that by mixing some plain code in your grammar to do so. You can embed plain code by wrapping it inside { and }. So first convert the value the token Int holds into an integer variable called chars:
SString
: 's:' Int {chars = int($Int.text)} ':"' ( . )* '";'
;
Now embed some code inside the ( . )* loop to stop it consuming as soon as chars is counted down to zero:
SString
: 's:' Int {chars = int($Int.text)} ':"' ( {if chars == 0: break} . {chars = chars-1} )* '";'
;
and that's it.
A little demo grammar:
grammar Test;
options {
language=Python;
}
parse
: (SString {print 'parsed: [\%s]' \% $SString.text})+ EOF
;
SString
: 's:' Int {chars = int($Int.text)} ':"' ( {if chars == 0: break} . {chars = chars-1} )* '";'
;
Int
: '0'..'9'+
;
(note that you need to escape the % inside your grammar!)
And a test script:
import antlr3
from TestLexer import TestLexer
from TestParser import TestParser
input = 's:6:"length";s:1:""";s:0:"";s:3:"end";'
char_stream = antlr3.ANTLRStringStream(input)
lexer = TestLexer(char_stream)
tokens = antlr3.CommonTokenStream(lexer)
parser = TestParser(tokens)
parser.parse()
which produces the following output:
parsed: [s:6:"length";]
parsed: [s:1:""";]
parsed: [s:0:"";]
parsed: [s:3:"end";]

Resources