I am trying to use the regular expression (?r-s:pattern) as mentioned in the Flex manual.
Following code works only when i input small letter 'a' and not the caps 'A'
%%
[(?i:a)] { printf("color"); }
\n { printf("NEWLINE\n"); return EOL;}
. { printf("Mystery character %s\n", yytext); }
%%
OUTPUT
a
colorNEWLINE
A
Mystery character A
NEWLINE
Reverse is also true i.e. if i change the line (?i:a) to (?i:A) it only considers 'A' as valid input and not 'a'.
If I remove the square brackets i.e. [] it gives error as
"ex1.lex", line 2: unrecognized rule
If I enclose the "(?i:a)" then it compiles but after executing it always goes to last rule i.e. "Mystery character..."
Please let me know how to use it properly.
I guess I am late.. :) Anyway, which flex version are you using, I have version 2.5.35 installed and correctly recognizes above pattern. Perhaps you're using old version!!!
Now regarding the enclosing with [] brackets. It works because as per [] regex rule it will try to match any of individual (, ?, i, :, a or ). Thats why a gets recognized and not A (because it is not in the list).
The way I read the manual, the rule without the square brackets should perform the case-insensitive matching you're looking for--I can't explain why you get an error at compile time. But you can achieve the same behavior in one of two ways. One, you can enumerate the upper and lower case characters in the character class:
%%
[Aa] { printf("color"); }
%%
Two, you can specify the case-insensitive scanner option, either on the command line as -i or --case-insensitive or in your .l file:
%%
%option case-insensitive
[a] {printf("color"); }
%%
Related
I am writing a simple scanner in flex. I want my scanner to print out "integer type seen" when it sees the keyword "int". Is there any difference between the following two ways?
1st way:
%%
int printf("integer type seen");
%%
2nd way:
%%
"int" printf("integer type seen");
%%
So, is there a difference between writing if or "if"? Also, for example when we see a == operator, we print something. Is there a difference between writing == or "==" in the flex file?
There's no difference in these specific cases -- the quotes(") just tell lex to NOT interpret any special characters (eg, for regular expressions) in the quoted string, but if there are no special characters involved, they don't matter:
[a-z] printf("matched a single letter\n");
"[a-z]" printf("matched the 5-character string '[a-z]'\n");
0* printf("matched zero or more zero characters\n");
"0*" printf("matched a zero followed by an asterisk\n");
Characters that are special and mean something different outside of quotes include . * + ? | ^ $ < > [ ] ( ) { } /. Some of those only have special meaning if they appear at certain places, but its generally clearer to quote them regardless of where they appear if you want to match the literal characters.
I am trying to create a Lexer/Parser with ANTLR that can parse plain text with 'tags' scattered inbetween.
These tags are denoted by opening ({) and closing (}) brackets and they represent Java objects that can evaluate to a string, that is then replaced in the original input to create a dynamic template of sorts.
Here is an example:
{player:name} says hi!
The {player:name} should be replaced by the name of the player and result in the output i.e. Mark says hi! for the player named Mark.
Now I can recognize and parse the tags just fine, what I have problems with is the text that comes after.
This is the grammar I use:
grammar : content+
content : tag
| literal
;
tag : player_tag
| <...>
| <other kinds of tags, not important for this example>
| <...>
;
player_tag : BRACKET_OPEN player_identifier SEMICOLON player_string_parameter BRACKET_CLOSE ;
player_string_parameter : NAME
| <...>
;
player_identifier : PLAYER ;
literal : NUMBER
| STRING
;
BRACKET_OPEN : '{';
BRACKET_CLOSE : '}';
PLAYER : 'player'
NAME : 'name'
NUMBER : <...>
STRING : (.+)? /* <- THIS IS THE PROBLEMATIC PART !*/
Now this STRING Lexer definition should match anything that is not an empty string but the problem is that it is too greedy and then also consumes the { } bracket tokens needed for the tag rule.
I have tried setting it to ~[{}]+ which is supposed to match anything that does not include the { } brackets but that screws with the tag parsing which I don't understand either.
I could set it to something like [ a-zA-Z0-9!"§$%&/()= etc...]+ but I really don't want to restrict it to parse only characters available on the british keyboard (German umlaute or French accents and all other special characters other languages have must to work!)
The only thing that somewhat works though I really dislike it is to force strings to have a prefix and a suffix like so:
STRING : '\'' ~[}{]+ '\'' ;
This forces me to alter the form from "{player:name} says hi!" to "{player:name}' says hi!'" and I really desperately want to avoid such restrictions because I would then have to account for literal ' characters in the string itself and it's just ugly to work with.
The two solutions I have in mind are the following:
- Is there any way to match any number of characters that has not been matched by the lexer as a STRING token and pass it to the parser? That way I could match all the tags and say the rest of the input is just plain text, give it back to me as a STRING token or whatever...
- Does ANTLR support lookahead and lookbehind regex expressions with which I could match any number of characters before the first '{', after the last '}' and anything inbetween '}' and '{' ?
I have tried
STRING : (?<=})(.+)?(?={) ;
but I can't seem to get the syntax right because that won't compile at all, which leads me to believe that ANTLR does not support lookahead and lookbehind syntax, but I could not find a definitive answer on the internet to that question.
Any advice on what to do?
Antlr does not support lookahead or lookbehind. It does support non-greedy wildcard matches, but only when the .* non-greedy wildcard is followed in the rule with the termination sequence (which, as you say, is also contained in the match, although you could push it back into the input stream).
So ~[{}]* is correct. But there's a little problem: lexer rules are (normally) always active. So that lexer rule will be active inside the braces as well, which means that it will swallow the entire contents between the braces (unless there are nested braces or braces inside quotes or some such, and that's even worse).
So you need to define different lexical contents, called "lexical modes" in Antlr. There's a publically viewable example in the Antlr Definitive Reference, which shows a solution to a very similar problem: parsing HTML.
For my parser, for the purpose of this question, any line starting with a single lowercase letter among a set of lowercase letters, followed by the character '=' followed by any other character is a valid line. So, the following are valid lines (all starting from first column):
a=20
b=50 70
q=20 Hello There
z=-
Any other line is not valid. My need is to match the complement. How do I write a flex expression to match the invalid lines. My confusion arises from the ^ which means start of line as well as complement the expression.
I thought ^[abq][=].+ would match the acceptable line so merely complementing it with ^ will do. But ^ at the start of the expression always implies match at start of the line. I made a few other attempts but that did not work too. Though not relevant, the expression is used as the first step to discard invalid SDP lines. See here for details from the relevant SDP RFC, if it matters.
The simplest approach is to always match entire lines (or use different start conditions to lexically analyse the rest of valid lines). Although flex does not have a negation operator (the [^…] negative character class is not an operator), in this case the expressions are pretty simple and can be expressed easily enough. Note that it doesn't matter that the various "invalid line" patterns are not disjoint, since it doesn't matter which one matches a particular invalid line. So here are three patterns which I believe collectively match all invalid lines
[^abqz\n].* { /* Starts with the wrong letter */ }
.[^=\n] { /* Second character not = */ }
.$ { /* Only one character in line */ }
I'm trying to match the prefix of the string Something. For example, If input So,SOM,SomeTH,some,S, it is all accepted because they are all prefixes of Something.
My code
Ss[oO]|Ss[omOMOmoM] {
printf("Accept Something": %s\n", yytext);
}
Input
Som
Output
Accept Something: So
Invalid Character
It's suppose to read Som because it is a prefix of Something. I don't get why my code doesn't work. Can anyone correct me on what I am doing wrong?
I don't know what you think the meaning of
Ss[oO]|Ss[omOMOmoM]
is, but what it matches is either:
an S followed by an s followed by exactly one of the letters o or O, or
an S followed by an s followed by exactly one of the letters o, O, m or M. Putting a symbol more than once inside a bracket expression has no effect.
Also, I don't see how that could produce the output you report. Perhaps there was a copy-and-paste error, or perhsps you have other pattern rules.
If you want to match prefixes, use nested optional matches:
s(o(m(e(t(h(i(ng?)?)?)?)?)?)?)?
If you want case-insensitive matcges, you could write out all the character classes, but that gets tiriesome; simpler is to use a case-insensitve flag:
(?i:s(o(m(e(t(h(i(ng?)?)?)?)?)?)?)?)
(?i: turns on the insensitive flag, until the matching close parenthesis.
In practice, this is probably not what you want. Normally, you will want to recognise a complete word as a token. You could then check to see if the word is a prefix in the rule action:
[[:alpha:]]+ { if (yyleng <= strlen("something") && 0 == strncasemp(yytext, "something", yyleng) {
/* do something */
}
}
There is lots of information in the Flex manual.
Right now your code (as shown) should only match "Sso" or "SsO" or "Ssm" or "SsM".
You have two alternatives that each start with Ss (without square brackets) so those will be matched literally. That's followed by either [oO] or [omOMomoM], but the characters in square brackets represent alternatives, so that's equivalent to [oOmM] --i.e., any one character of of o, O, m or M.
I'd start with: %option caseless to make it a case-insensitive scanner, so you don't have to list the upper- and lower-case equivalents of every letter.
Then it's probably easiest to just list the alternatives literally:
s|so|som|some|somet|someth|somethi|somethin|something { printf("found prefix"); }
I guess you can make the pattern a bit shorter (at least in the source code) by doing something on this order:
s(o(m(e(t(h(i(n(n(g)?)?)?)?)?)?)?)?)? { printf("found prefix"); }
Doesn't seem like a huge improvement to me, but some might find it more attractive than I do.
If you don't want to use %option caseless the basic idea helps more:
[sS]([oO]([mM]([eE]([tT]([hH]([iI]([nN]([gG])?)?)?)?)?)?)?)? { printf("found prefix"); }
Listing every possible combination of upper and lower case would get tedious.
I was writing a parser to parse C-like grammars.
First, it could now parse code like:
a = 1;
b = 2;
Now I want to make the semicolon at the end of line optional.
The original YACC rule was:
stmt: expr ';' { ... }
Where the new line is processed by the lexer that written by myself(the code are simplified):
rule(/\r\n|\r|\n/) { increase_lineno(); return :PASS }
the instruction :PASS here is equivalent to return nothing in LEX, which drop current matched text and skip to the next rule, just like what is usually done with whitespaces.
Because of this, I can't just simply change my YACC rule into:
stmt: expr end_of_stmt { ... }
;
end_of_stmt: ';'
| '\n'
;
So I chose to change the lexer's state dynamically by the parser correspondingly.
Like this:
stmt: expr { state = :STATEMENT_END } ';' { ... }
And add a lexer rule that can match new line with the new state:
rule(/\r\n|\r|\n/, :STATEMENT_END) { increase_lineno(); state = nil; return ';' }
Which means when the lexer is under :STATEMENT_END state. it will first increase the line number as usual, and then set the state into initial one, and then pretend itself is a semicolon.
It's strange that it doesn't actually work with following code:
a = 1
b = 2
I debugged it and got it is not actually get a ';' as expect when scanned the newline after the number 1, and the state specified rule is not really executed.
And the code to set the new state is executed after it already scanned the new line and returned nothing, that means, these works is done as following order:
scan a, = and 1
scan newline and skip, so get the next value b
the inserted code({ state = :STATEMENT_END }) is executed
raising error -- unexpected b here
This is what I expect:
scan a, = and 1
found that it matches the rule expr, so reduce into stmt
execute the inserted code to set the new lexer state
scan the newline and return a ; according the new state matching rule
continue to scan & parse the following line
After introspection I found that might caused as YACC uses LALR(1), this parser will read forward for one token first. When it scans to there, the state is not set yet, so it cannot get a correct token.
My question is: how to make it work as expected? I have no idea on this.
Thanks.
The first thing to recognize is that having optional line terminators like this introduces ambiguity into your language, and so you first need to decide which way you want to resolve the ambiguity. In this case, the main ambiguity comes from operators that may be either infix or prefix. For example:
a = b
-c;
Do you want to treat the above as a single expr-statement, or as two separate statements with the first semicolon elided? A similar potential ambiguity occurs with function call syntax in a C-like language:
a = b
(c);
If you want these to resolve as two statements, you can use the approach you've tried; you just need to set the state one token earlier. This gets tricky as you DON'T want to set the state if you have unclosed parenthesis, so you end up needing an additional state var to record the paren nesting depth, and only set the insert-semi-before-newline state when that is 0.
If you want to resolve the above cases as one statement, things get tricky, as you actually need more lookahead to decide when a newline should end a statement -- at the very least you need to look at the token AFTER the newline (and any comments or other ignored stuff). In this case you can have the lexer do the extra lookahead. If you were using flex (which you're apparently not?), I would suggest either using the / operator (which does lookahead directly), or defer returning the semicolon until the lexer rule that matches the next token.
In general, when doing this kind of token state recording, I find it easiest to do it entirely within the lexer where possible, so you don't need to worry about the extra token of lookahead sometimes (but not always) done by the parser. In this specific case, an easy approach would be to have the lexer record the parenthesis seen (+1 for (, -1 for )), and the last token returned. Then, in the newline rule, if the paren level is 0 and the last token was something that could end an expression (ID or constant or ) or postfix-only operator), return the extra ;
An alternate approach is to have the lexer return NEWLINE as its own token. You would then change the parser to accept stmt: expr NEWLINE as well as optional newlines between most other tokens in the grammar. This exposes the ambiguity directly to the parser (its now not LALR(1)), so you need to resolve it either by using yacc's operator precedence rules (tricky and error prone), or using something like bison's %glr-parser option or btyacc's backtracking ability to deal with the ambiguity directly.
What you are attempting is certainly possible.
Ruby, in fact, does exactly this, and it has a yacc parser. Newlines soft-terminate statements, semicolons are optional, and statements are automatically continued on multiple lines "if they need it".
Communicating between the parser and lexical analyzer may be necessary, and yes, legacy yacc is LALR(1).
I don't know exactly how Ruby does it. My guess has always been that it doesn't actually communicate (much) but rather the lexer recognizes constructs that obviously aren't finished and silently just treats newlines as spaces until the parens and brackets balance. It must also notice when lines end with binary operators or commas and eat those newlines too.
Just a guess, but I believe this technique would work. And Ruby is open source... if you want to see exactly how Matz did it.