Changing associativity schema in a grammar - parsing

I'm trying to use SableCC to generate a Parser for models, which I call LAM. LAM in itself are simple, and a simple grammar (where I omit a lot of things) for these is:
L := 0 | (x,y) | F(x1,...,xn) | L || L | L ; L
I wrote this grammar:
Helpers
number = ['0' .. '9'] ;
letter = ['a' .. 'z'] ;
uletter = ['A' .. 'Z'] ;
Tokens
zero = '0' ;
comma = ',' ;
parallel = '||' ;
point = ';' ;
lpar = '(' ;
rpar = ')' ;
identifier = letter+ number* ;
uidentifier = uletter+ number* ;
Productions
expr = {term} term |
{parallel} expr parallel term |
{point} expr point term;
term = {parenthesis} lpar expr rpar |
{zero} zero |
{invk} uidentifier lpar paramlist rpar |
{pair} lpar [left]:identifier comma [right]:identifier rpar ;
paramlist = {list} list |
{empty} ;
list = {var} identifier |
{com} identifier comma list ;
This basically works, but there is a side effect: it is left associative. For example, if I have
L = L1 || L2 ; L3 || L4
Then it is parsed like:
L = ((L1 || L2) ; L3) || L4
I want to give all precedence to the ";" operator, and so have L parsed like
L = (L1 || L2) ; (L3 || L4)
(other things, like "||", could remains left-associative)
My questions are:
There are tips to do such conversions in a "automated" way?
How could be a grammar with all the precedence on the ";" ?
It is accepted also "RTFM link" :-D
Thank you all

You need to create a hierarchy of rules that matches the desired operator precedence.
expr = {subexp} subexp |
{parallel} subexp parallel expr ;
subexp = {term} term |
{point} term point subexp;
Note that I also changed the associativity.

Related

Expression Evaluation using combinators in Haskell

I'm trying to make an expression evaluator in Hakell:
data Parser i o
= Success o [i]
| Failure String [i]
| Parser
{parse :: [i] -> Parser i o}
data Operator = Add | Sub | Mul | Div | Pow
data Expr
= Op Operator Expr Expr
| Val Double
expr :: Parser Char Expr
expr = add_sub
where
add_sub = calc Add '+' mul_div <|> calc Sub '-' mul_div <|> mul_div
mul_div = calc Mul '*' pow <|> calc Div '/' pow <|> pow
pow = calc Pow '^' factor <|> factor
factor = parens <|> val
val = Val <$> parseDouble
parens = parseChar '(' *> expr <* parseChar ')'
calc c o p = Op c <$> (p <* parseChar o) <*> p
My problem is that when I try to evaluate an expression with two operators with same priority (e.g. 1+1-1) the parser will fail.
How can I say that an add_sub can be an operation between two other add_subs without creating an infinite loop?
As explained by #chi the problem is that calc was using p twice which doesn't allow for patterns like muldiv + .... | muldiv - ... | ...
I just changed the definition of calc to :
calc c o p p2 = Op c <$> (p <* parseChar o) <*> p2
where p2 is the current priority (mul_div in the definition of mul_div)
it works much better but the order of calulations is backwards:
2/3/4 is parsed as 2/(3/4) instead of (2/3)/4

Using OCaml Menhir, is there a way to access something before it is processed?

I am writing a parser to parse and compute function derivatives in a calculator.
I got a problem with implementing product and quotient rules :
for a product the derivation formula is (u*v)' = u'v+uv', thus I need the value of u and u' in the final output. And with the parser I currently have, whenever comes the need to write u, it has already been replaced by u' and I quite don't know how to save its value, nor if it's even
possible...
Here's the parser :
%token <string> VAR FUNCTION CONST
%token LEFT_B RIGHT_B PLUS MINUS TIMES DIV
%token DERIV
%token EOL
%start<string> main
%%
main:
t = toDeriv; EOL {t}
;
toDeriv:
DERIV; LEFT_B; e = expr; RIGHT_B {e}
;
expr:
u = expr; PLUS v = hat_funct {u^"+"^v}
| u = expr; MINUS; v = hat_funct {u^"-"^v}
| u = hat_funct {u}
;
hat_funct:
u = hat_funct TIMES v = funct {Printf.sprintf "%s * %s + %s * %s" u (A way to save v) v (A way to save u)}
| u = hat_funct DIV v = funct {Printf.sprintf "(%s * %s - %s * %s)/%s^2" u (A way to save v) (A way to save u) v (A way to save v)}
| u = funct {u}
;
funct:
f = func; LEFT_B; c = content; RIGHT_B {Derivatives.deriv_func f c}
;
content:
e = expr {e}
| x = VAR {x}
| k = CONST {k}
func:
f = FUNCTION {f}
| k = CONST {k}
;
P.S : I know it might not be the greatest grammar definition at all, it's still a work in progress
Answering directly your question, yes you can maintain the state of what is being already processed. But that is not how things are done. The idiomatic solution is to write a parser that parses the input language into the abstract syntax tree and then write a solver that will take this tree as input and computes it. You shouldn't do anything in the parser, this is a simple automaton which shall not have any side-effects.
To keep it less abstract, what you want from the parser is the function string -> expr, where expr type is defined something like
type expr =
| Var of string
| Const of string
| Binop of binop * expr * expr
and binop = Add | Mul | Sub | Div

How to parse simple imperative language using Parsec?

I have a simple language with following grammar
Expr -> Var | Int | Expr Op Expr
Op -> + | - | * | / | % | == | != | < | > | <= | >= | && | ||
Stmt -> Skip | Var := Expr | Stmt ; Stmt | write Expr | read Expr | while Expr do Stmt | if Expr then Stmt else Stmt
I am writing simple parser for this language using Haskell's Parsec library and i am stuck with some things
When i try to parse statement skip ; skip i get only first Skip, however i want go get something like Colon Skip Skip
Also when i try to parse the assignment, i get an infinite recursion. For example, when i try to parse x := 1 my computer hangs up for long time.
Here is full source code of my parser. Thanks for any help!
module Parser where
import Control.Monad
import Text.Parsec.Language
import Text.ParserCombinators.Parsec
import Text.ParserCombinators.Parsec.Expr
import Text.ParserCombinators.Parsec.Language
import qualified Text.ParserCombinators.Parsec.Token as Token
type Id = String
data Op = Add
| Sub
| Mul
| Div
| Mod
| Eq
| Neq
| Gt
| Geq
| Lt
| Leq
| And
| Or deriving (Eq, Show)
data Expr = Var Id
| Num Integer
| BinOp Op Expr Expr deriving (Eq, Show)
data Stmt = Skip
| Assign Expr Expr
| Colon Stmt Stmt
| Write Expr
| Read Expr
| WhileLoop Expr Stmt
| IfCond Expr Stmt Stmt deriving (Eq, Show)
languageDef =
emptyDef { Token.commentStart = ""
, Token.commentEnd = ""
, Token.commentLine = ""
, Token.nestedComments = False
, Token.caseSensitive = True
, Token.identStart = letter
, Token.identLetter = alphaNum
, Token.reservedNames = [ "skip"
, ";"
, "write"
, "read"
, "while"
, "do"
, "if"
, "then"
, "else"
]
, Token.reservedOpNames = [ "+"
, "-"
, "*"
, "/"
, ":="
, "%"
, "=="
, "!="
, ">"
, ">="
, "<"
, "<="
, "&&"
, "||"
]
}
lexer = Token.makeTokenParser languageDef
identifier = Token.identifier lexer
reserved = Token.reserved lexer
reservedOp = Token.reservedOp lexer
semi = Token.semi lexer
parens = Token.parens lexer
integer = Token.integer lexer
whiteSpace = Token.whiteSpace lexer
ifStmt :: Parser Stmt
ifStmt = do
reserved "if"
cond <- expression
reserved "then"
action1 <- statement
reserved "else"
action2 <- statement
return $ IfCond cond action1 action2
whileStmt :: Parser Stmt
whileStmt = do
reserved "while"
cond <- expression
reserved "do"
action <- statement
return $ WhileLoop cond action
assignStmt :: Parser Stmt
assignStmt = do
var <- expression
reservedOp ":="
expr <- expression
return $ Assign var expr
skipStmt :: Parser Stmt
skipStmt = do
reserved "skip"
return Skip
colonStmt :: Parser Stmt
colonStmt = do
s1 <- statement
reserved ";"
s2 <- statement
return $ Colon s1 s2
readStmt :: Parser Stmt
readStmt = do
reserved "read"
e <- expression
return $ Read e
writeStmt :: Parser Stmt
writeStmt = do
reserved "write"
e <- expression
return $ Write e
statement :: Parser Stmt
statement = colonStmt
<|> assignStmt
<|> writeStmt
<|> readStmt
<|> whileStmt
<|> ifStmt
<|> skipStmt
expression :: Parser Expr
expression = buildExpressionParser operators term
term = fmap Var identifier
<|> fmap Num integer
<|> parens expression
operators = [ [Infix (reservedOp "==" >> return (BinOp Eq)) AssocNone,
Infix (reservedOp "!=" >> return (BinOp Neq)) AssocNone,
Infix (reservedOp ">" >> return (BinOp Gt)) AssocNone,
Infix (reservedOp ">=" >> return (BinOp Geq)) AssocNone,
Infix (reservedOp "<" >> return (BinOp Lt)) AssocNone,
Infix (reservedOp "<=" >> return (BinOp Leq)) AssocNone,
Infix (reservedOp "&&" >> return (BinOp And)) AssocNone,
Infix (reservedOp "||" >> return (BinOp Or)) AssocNone]
, [Infix (reservedOp "*" >> return (BinOp Mul)) AssocLeft,
Infix (reservedOp "/" >> return (BinOp Div)) AssocLeft,
Infix (reservedOp "%" >> return (BinOp Mod)) AssocLeft]
, [Infix (reservedOp "+" >> return (BinOp Add)) AssocLeft,
Infix (reservedOp "-" >> return (BinOp Sub)) AssocLeft]
]
parser :: Parser Stmt
parser = whiteSpace >> statement
parseString :: String -> Stmt
parseString str =
case parse parser "" str of
Left e -> error $ show e
Right r -> r`
It's a common problem of parsers based on parser combinator: statement is left-recursive as its first pattern is colonStmt, and the first thing colonStmt will do is try parsing a statement again. Parser combinators are well-known won't terminate in this case.
Removed the colonStmt pattern from statement parser and the other parts worked appropriately:
> parseString "if (1 == 1) then skip else skip"
< IfCond (BinOp Eq (Num 1) (Num 1)) Skip Skip
> parseString "x := 1"
< Assign (Var "x") (Num 1)
The solution is fully described in this repo, there's no license file so I don't really know if it's safe to refer to the code, the general idea is to add another layer of parser when parsing any statement:
statement :: Parser Stmt
statement = do
ss <- sepBy1 statement' (reserved ";")
if length ss == 1
then return $ head ss
else return $ foldr1 Colon ss
statement' :: Parser Stmt
statement' = assignStmt
<|> writeStmt
<|> readStmt
<|> whileStmt
<|> ifStmt
<|> skipStmt

Creating Bison File for Simple Grammar

I have the following simple grammar:
E -> T | ^ v . E
T -> F T1
T1 -> F T1 | epsilon
F -> ( E ) | v
I'm pretty new to Bison, so I was hoping someone could help show me how to write it out in that format. All I have so far is the following, but I'm not sure if it's correct:
%left '.'
%left 'v'
%% /* The grammar follows. */
exp:
term {printf("1");}
| '^' 'v' '.' exp {printf("2");}
;
term:
factor term1 {printf("3");}
;
term1:
factor term1 {printf("4");}
| {printf("5");}
;
factor:
'(' exp ')' {printf("6");}
| 'v' {printf("7");}
;
%%
You are missing the closing semicolon from several of the productions. There's nothing in the source grammar to suggest you need the productions about lines.

Assignment as expression in Antlr grammar

I'm trying to extend the grammar of the Tiny Language to treat assignment as expression. Thus it would be valid to write
a = b = 1; // -> a = (b = 1)
a = 2 * (b = 1); // contrived but valid
a = 1 = 2; // invalid
Assignment differs from other operators in two aspects. It's right associative (not a big deal), and its left-hand side is has to be a variable. So I changed the grammar like this
statement: assignmentExpr | functionCall ...;
assignmentExpr: Identifier indexes? '=' expression;
expression: assignmentExpr | condExpr;
It doesn't work, because it contains a non-LL(*) decision. I also tried this variant:
assignmentExpr: Identifier indexes? '=' (expression | condExpr);
but I got the same error. I am interested in
This specific question
Given a grammar with a non-LL(*) decision, how to find the two paths that cause the problem
How to fix it
I think you can change your grammar like this to achieve the same, without using syntactic predicates:
statement: Expr ';' | functionCall ';'...;
Expr: Identifier indexes? '=' Expr | condExpr ;
condExpr: .... and so on;
I altered Bart's example with this idea in mind:
grammar TL;
options {
output=AST;
}
tokens {
ROOT;
}
parse
: stat+ EOF -> ^(ROOT stat+)
;
stat
: expr ';'
;
expr
: Id Assign expr -> ^(Assign Id expr)
| add
;
add
: mult (('+' | '-')^ mult)*
;
mult
: atom (('*' | '/')^ atom)*
;
atom
: Id
| Num
| '('! expr ')' !
;
Assign : '=' ;
Comment : '//' ~('\r' | '\n')* {skip();};
Id : 'a'..'z'+;
Num : '0'..'9'+;
Space : (' ' | '\t' | '\r' | '\n')+ {skip();};
And for the input:
a=b=4;
a = 2 * (b = 1);
you get following parse tree:
The key here is that you need to "assure" the parser that inside an expression, there is something ahead that satisfies the expression. This can be done using a syntactic predicate (the ( ... )=> parts in the add and mult rules).
A quick demo:
grammar TL;
options {
output=AST;
}
tokens {
ROOT;
ASSIGN;
}
parse
: stat* EOF -> ^(ROOT stat+)
;
stat
: expr ';' -> expr
;
expr
: add
;
add
: mult ((('+' | '-') mult)=> ('+' | '-')^ mult)*
;
mult
: atom ((('*' | '/') atom)=> ('*' | '/')^ atom)*
;
atom
: (Id -> Id) ('=' expr -> ^(ASSIGN Id expr))?
| Num
| '(' expr ')' -> expr
;
Comment : '//' ~('\r' | '\n')* {skip();};
Id : 'a'..'z'+;
Num : '0'..'9'+;
Space : (' ' | '\t' | '\r' | '\n')+ {skip();};
which will parse the input:
a = b = 1; // -> a = (b = 1)
a = 2 * (b = 1); // contrived but valid
into the following AST:

Resources