I recently started studying ANTLR. Below is the grammar for the arithmetic expression.
The problem is that when I am putting (calling) expression rule in the term rule then it is parsing incorrectly even for (9+8). It is somehow ignoring the right parenthesis.
While when I put add rule instead of calling expression rule from the rule term, it is working fine.
As in:
term:
INTEGER
| '(' add ')'
;
Can anyone tell me why it is happening because more or les they both are the same.
Grammer for which it is giving incorrect results
term
:
INTEGER
| '(' expression ')'
;
mult
:
term ('*' term)*
;
add
:
mult ('+' mult)*
;
expression
:
add
;
When I parse "(8+9)" with a parser generated from your grammar, starting with the expression rule, I get the following parse tree:
In other words: it works just fine.
Perhaps you're using ANTLRWorks' (or ANTLR IDE's) interpreter to test your grammar? In thta case: don't use the interpreter, it's buggy. Use ANTLRWorks' debugger instead (the image is exported from ANTLRWorks' debugger).
Related
I have the following grammar rules defined to cover tuples of the form: (a), (a,), (a,b), (a,b,) and so on. However, antlr3 gives the warning:
"Decision can match input such as "COMMA" using multiple alternatives: 1, 2
I believe this means that my grammar is not LL(1). This caught me by surprise as, based on my extremely limited understanding of this topic, the parser would only need to look one token ahead from (COMMA)? to ')' in order to know which comma it was on.
Also based on the discussion I found here I am further confused: Amend JSON - based grammar to allow for trailing comma
And their source code here: https://github.com/doctrine/annotations/blob/1.13.x/lib/Doctrine/Common/Annotations/DocParser.php#L1307
Is this because of the kind of parser that antlr is trying to generate and not because my grammar isn't LL(1)? Any insight would be appreciated.
options {k=1; backtrack=no;}
tuple : '(' IDENT (COMMA IDENT)* (COMMA)? ')';
DIGIT : '0'..'9' ;
LOWER : 'a'..'z' ;
UPPER : 'A'..'Z' ;
IDENT : (LOWER | UPPER | '_') (LOWER | UPPER | '_' | DIGIT)* ;
edit: changed typo in tuple: ... from (IDENT)? to (COMMA)?
Note:
The question has been edited since this answer was written. In the original, the grammar had the line:
tuple : '(' IDENT (COMMA IDENT)* (IDENT)? ')';
and that's what this answer is referring to.
That grammar works without warnings, but it doesn't describe the language you intend to parse. It accepts, for example, (a, b c) but fails to accept (a, b,).
My best guess is that you actually used something like the grammars in the links you provide, in which the final optional element is a comma, not an identifier:
tuple : '(' IDENT (COMMA IDENT)* (COMMA)? ')';
That does give the warning you indicate, and it won't match (a,) (for example), because, as the warning says, the second alternative has been disabled.
LL(1) as a property of formal grammars only applies to grammars with fixed right-hand sides, as opposed to the "Extended" BNF used by many top-down parser generators, including Antlr, in which a right-hand side can be a set of possibilities. It's possible to expand EBNF using additional non-terminals for each subrule (although there is not necessarily a canonical expansion, and expansions might differ in their parsing category). But, informally, we could extend the concept of LL(k) by saying that in every EBNF right-hand side, at every point where there is more than one alternative, the parser must be able to predict the appropriate alternative looking only at the next k tokens.
You're right that the grammar you provide is LL(1) in that sense. When the parser has just seen IDENT, it has three clear alternatives, each marked by a different lookahead token:
COMMA ↠ predict another repetition of (COMMA IDENT).
IDENT ↠ predict (IDENT).
')' ↠ predict an empty (IDENT)?.
But in the correct grammar (with my modification above), IDENT is a syntax error and COMMA could be either another repetition of ( COMMA IDENT ), or it could be the COMMA in ( COMMA )?.
You could change k=1 to k=2, thereby allowing the parser to examine the next two tokens, and if you did so it would compile with no warnings. In effect, that grammar is LL(2).
You could make an LL(1) grammar by left-factoring the expansion of the EBNF, but it's not going to be as pretty (or as easy for a reader to understand). So if you have a parser generator which can cope with the grammar as written, you might as well not worry about it.
But, for what it's worth, here's a possible solution:
tuple : '(' idents ')' ;
idents : IDENT ( COMMA ( idents )? )? ;
Untested because I don't have a working Antlr3 installation, but it at least compiles the grammar without warnings. Sorry if there is a problem.
It would probably be better to use tuple : '(' (idents)? ')'; in order to allow empty tuples. Also, there's no obvious reason to insist on COMMA instead of just using ',', assuming that '(' and ')' work as expected on Antlr3.
I'm trying to parse 'for loop' according to this (partial) grammar:
grammar GaleugParserNew;
/*
* PARSER RULES
*/
relational
: '>'
| '<'
;
varChange
: '++'
| '--'
;
values
: ID
| DIGIT
;
for_stat
: FOR '(' ID '=' values ';' values relational values ';' ID varChange ')' '{' '}'
;
/*
* LEXER RULES
*/
FOR : 'for' ;
ID : [a-zA-Z_] [a-zA-Z_0-9]* ;
DIGIT : [0-9]+ ;
SPACE : [ \t\r\n] -> skip ;
When I try to generate the gui of how it's parsed, it's not following the grammar I provided above. This is what it produces:
I've encountered this problem before, what I did then was simply exit cmd, open it again and compile everything and somehow that worked then. It's not working now though.
I'm not really very knowledgeable about antlr4 so I'm not sure where to look to solve this problem.
Must be a problem of the IDE you are using. The grammar is fine and produces this parse tree in Visual Studio Code:
I guess the IDE is using the wrong parser or lexer (maybe from a different work file?). Print the lexer tokens to see if they are what you expect. Hint: avoid defining implicit lexer tokens (like '(', '}' etc.), which will allow to give the tokens good names.
I have a simple grammar (for demonstration)
grammar Test;
program
: expression* EOF
;
expression
: Identifier
| expression '(' expression? ')'
| '(' expression ')'
;
Identifier
: [a-zA-Z_] [a-zA-Z_0-9?]*
;
WS
: [ \r\t\n]+ -> channel(HIDDEN)
;
Obviously the second and third alternatives in the expression rule are ambiguous. I want to resolve this ambiguity by permitting the second alternative only if an expression is immediately followed by a '('.
So the following
bar(foo)
should match the second alternative while
bar
(foo)
should match the 1st and 3rd alternatives (even if the token between them is in the HIDDEN channel).
How can I do that? I have seen these ambiguities, between call expressions and parenthesized expressions, present in languages that have no (or have optional) expression terminator tokens (or rules) - example
The solution to this is to temporary "unhide" whitespace in your second alternative. Have a look at this question for how this can be done.
With that solution your code could look somthing like this
expression
: Identifier
| {enableWS();} expression '(' {disableWS();} expression? ')'
| '(' expression ')'
;
That way the second alternative matches the input WS-sensitive and will therefore only be matched if the identifier is directly followed by the bracket.
See here for the implementation of the MultiChannelTokenStream that is mentioned in the linked question.
I'm writing a grammar for a language that contains some binary operators that can also be used as unary operator (argument to the right side of the operator) and for a better error recovery I'd like them to be usable as nular operators as well).
My simplified grammar looks like this:
start:
code EOF
;
code:
(binaryExpression SEMICOLON?)*
;
binaryExpression:
binaryExpression BINARY_OPERATOR binaryExpression //TODO: check before primaryExpression
| primaryExpression
;
primaryExpression:
unaryExpression
| nularExpression
;
unaryExpression:
operator primaryExpression
| BINARY_OPERATOR primaryExpression
;
nularExpression:
operator
| BINARY_OPERATOR
| NUMBER
| STRING
;
operator:
ID
;
BINARY_OPERATOR is just a set of defined keywords that are fed into the parser.
My problem is that Antlr prefers to use BINARY_OPERATORs as unary expressions (or nualr ones if there is no other choice) instead of trying to use them in a binary expression as I need it to be done.
For example consider the following intput: for varDec from one to twelve do something where from, to and do are binary operators the output of the parser is the following:
As you can see it interprets all binary operators as unary ones.
What I'm trying to achieve is the following: Try to match each BINARY_OPERATOR in a binary expression and only if that is not possible try to match them as a unary expression and if that isn't possible as well then it might be considered a nular expression (which can only be the case if the BINARY_OPERATORis the only content of an expression).
Has anyone an idea about how to achieve the desired behaviour?
Fairly standard approach is to use a single recursive rule to establish the acceptable expression syntax. ANTLR is default left associative, so op expr meets the stated unary op requirement of "argument to the right side of the operator". See, pg 70 of TDAR for a further discussion of associativity.
Ex1: -y+x -> binaryOp{unaryOp{-, literal}, +, literal}
Ex2: -y+-x -> binaryOp{unaryOp{-, literal}, +, unaryOp{-, literal}}
expr
: LPAREN expr RPAREN
| expr op expr #binaryOp
//| op expr #unaryOp // standard formulation
| op literal #unaryOp // limited formulation
| op #errorOp
| literal
;
op : .... ;
literal
: KEYWORD
| ID
| NUMBER
| STRING
;
You allow operators to act like operands ("nularExpression") and operands to act like operators ("operator: ID"). Between those two curious decisions, your grammar is 100% ambiguous, and there is never any need for a binary operator to be parsed. I don't know much about Antlr, but it surprises me that it doesn't warn you that your grammar is completely ambiguous.
Antlr has mechanisms to handle and recover from errors. You would be much better off using them than writing a deliberately ambiguous grammar which makes erroneous constructs part of the accepted grammar. (As I said, I'm not an Antlr expert, but there are Antlr experts who pass by here pretty regularly; if you ask a specific question about error recovery, I'm sure you'll get a good answer. You might also want to search this site for questions and answers about Antlr error recovery.)
I think what I'm going to write down now is what #GRosenberg meant with his answer. However as it took me a while to fully understand it I will provide a concrete solution for my problem in case someone else is stumbling across this question and is searching or an answer:
The trick was to remove the option to use a BINARY_OPERATOR inside the unaryExpression rule because this always got preferred. Instead what I really wanted was to specify that if there was no left side argument it should be okay to use a BINARY_OPERATOR in a unary way. And that's the way I had to specify it:
binaryExpression:
binaryExpression BINARY_OPERATOR binaryExpression
| BINARY_OPERATOR primaryExpression
| primaryExpression
;
That way this syntax only becomes possible if there is nothing to the left side of a BINARY_OPERATOR and in every other case the binary syntax has to be used.
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.