Related
I'm trying to figure out how I can best parse just a subset of a given language with ANTLR. For example, say I'm looking to parse U-SQL. Really, I'm only interested in parsing certain parts of the language, such as query statements. I couldn't be bothered with parsing the many other features of the language. My current approach has been to design my lexer / parser grammar as follows:
// ...
statement
: queryStatement
| undefinedStatement
;
// ...
undefinedStatement
: (.)+?
;
// ...
UndefinedToken
: (.)+?
;
The gist is, I add a fall-back parser rule and lexer rule for undefined structures and tokens. I imagine later, when I go to walk the parse tree, I can simply ignore the undefined statements in the tree, and focus on the statements I'm interested in.
This seems like it would work, but is this an optimal strategy? Are there more elegant options available? Thanks in advance!
Parsing a subpart of a grammar is super easy. Usually you have a top level rule which you call to parse the full input with the entire grammar.
For the subpart use the function that parses only a subrule like:
const expression = parser.statement();
I use this approach frequently when I want to parse stored procedures or data types only.
Keep in mind however, that subrules usually are not termined with the EOF token (as the top level rule should be). This will cause no syntax error if more than the subelement is in the token stream (the parser just stops when the subrule has matched completely). If that's a problem for you then add a copy of the subrule you wanna parse, give it a dedicated name and end it with EOF, like this:
dataTypeDefinition: // For external use only. Don't reference this in the normal grammar.
dataType EOF
;
dataType: // type in sql_yacc.yy
type = (
...
Check the MySQL grammar for more details.
This general idea -- to parse the interesting bits of an input and ignore the sea of surrounding tokens -- is usually called "island parsing". There's an example of an island parser in the ANTLR reference book, although I don't know if it is directly applicable.
The tricky part of island parsing is getting the island boundaries right. If you miss a boundary, or recognise as a boundary something which isn't, then your parse will fail disastrously. So you need to understand the input at least well enough to be able to detect where the islands are. In your example, that might mean recognising a SELECT statement, for example. However, you cannot blindly recognise the string of letters SELECT because that string might appear inside a string constant or a comment or some other context in which it was never intended to be recognised as a token at all.
I suspect that if you are going to parse queries, you'll basically need to be able to recognise any token. So it's not going to be sea of uninspected input characters. You can view it as a sea of recognised but unparsed tokens. In that case, it should be reasonably safe to parse a non-query statement as a keyword followed by arbitrary tokens other than ; and ending with a ;. (But you might need to recognise nested blocks; I don't really know what the possibilities are.)
I have this .bib file for reference management while writing my thesis in LaTeX:
#article{garg2017patch,
title={Patch testing in patients with suspected cosmetic dermatitis: A retrospective study},
author={Garg, Taru and Agarwal, Soumya and Chander, Ram and Singh, Aashim and Yadav, Pravesh},
journal={Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology},
year={2017},
publisher={Wiley Online Library}
}
#article{hauso2008neuroendocrine,
title={Neuroendocrine tumor epidemiology},
author={Hauso, Oyvind and Gustafsson, Bjorn I and Kidd, Mark and Waldum, Helge L and Drozdov, Ignat and Chan, Anthony KC and Modlin, Irvin M},
journal={Cancer},
volume={113},
number={10},
pages={2655--2664},
year={2008},
publisher={Wiley Online Library}
}
#article{siperstein1997laparoscopic,
title={Laparoscopic thermal ablation of hepatic neuroendocrine tumor metastases},
author={Siperstein, Allan E and Rogers, Stanley J and Hansen, Paul D and Gitomirsky, Alexis},
journal={Surgery},
volume={122},
number={6},
pages={1147--1155},
year={1997},
publisher={Elsevier}
}
If anyone wants to know what bib file is, you can find it detailed here.
I'd like to parse this with Perl 6 to extract the key along with the title like this:
garg2017patch: Patch testing in patients with suspected cosmetic dermatitis: A retrospective study
hauso2008neuroendocrine: Neuroendocrine tumor epidemiology
siperstein1997laparoscopic: Laparoscopic thermal ablation of hepatic neuroendocrine tumor metastases
Can you please help me to do this, maybe in two ways:
Using basic Perl 6
Using a Perl 6 Grammar
TL;DR
A complete and detailed answer that does just exactly as #Suman asks.
An introductory general answer to "I want to parse X. Can anyone help?"
A one-liner in a shell
I'll start with terse code that's perfect for some scenarios[1], and which someone might write if they're familiar with shell and Raku basics and in a hurry:
> raku -e 'for slurp() ~~ m:g / "#article\{" (<-[,]>+) \, \s+
"title=\{" (<-[}]>+) \} / -> $/ { put "$0: $1\n" }' < derm.bib
This produces precisely the output you specified:
garg2017patch: Patch testing in patients with suspected cosmetic dermatitis: A retrospective study
hauso2008neuroendocrine: Neuroendocrine tumor epidemiology
siperstein1997laparoscopic: Laparoscopic thermal ablation of hepatic neuroendocrine tumor metastases
Same single statement, but in a script
Skipping shell escapes and adding:
Whitespace.
Comments.
► use tio.run to run the code below
for slurp() # "slurp" (read all of) stdin and then
~~ m :global # match it "globally" (all matches) against
/ '#article{' (<-[,]>+) ',' \s+ # a "nextgen regex" that uses (`(...)`) to
'title={' (<-[}]>+) '}' / # capture the article id and title and then
-> $/ { put "$0: $1\n" } # for each article, print "article id: title".
Don't worry if the above still seems like pure gobbledygook. Later sections explain the above while also introducing code that's more general, clean, and readable.[2]
Four statements instead of one
my \input = slurp;
my \pattern = rule { '#article{' ( <-[,]>+ ) ','
'title={' ( <-[}]>+ ) }
my \articles = input .match: pattern, :global;
for articles -> $/ { put "$0: $1\n" }
my declares a lexical variable. Raku supports sigils at the start of variable names. But it also allows devs to "slash them out" as I have done.
my \pattern ...
my \pattern = rule { '#article{' ( <-[,]>+ ) ','
'title={' ( <-[}]>+ ) }
I've switched the pattern syntax from / ... / in the original one-liner to rule { ... }. I did this to:
Eliminate the risk of pathological backtracking
Classic regexes risk pathological backtracking. That's fine if you can just kill a program that's gone wild, but click the link to read how bad it can get! 🤪 We don't need backtracking to match the .bib format.
Communicate that the pattern is a rule
If you write a good deal of pattern matching code, you'll frequently want to use rule { ... }. A rule eliminates any risk of the classic regex problem just described (pathological backtracking), and has another superpower. I'll cover both aspects below, after first introducing the adverbs corresponding to those superpowers.
Raku regexes/rules can be (often are) used with "adverbs". These are convenient shortcuts that modify how patterns are applied.
I've already used an adverb in the earlier versions of this code. The "global" adverb (specified using :global or its shorthand alias :g) directs the matching engine to consume all of the input, generating a list of as many matches as it contains, instead of returning just the first match.
While there are shorthand aliases for adverbs, some are used so repeatedly that it's a lot tidier to bundle them up into distinct rule declarators. That's why I've used rule. It bundles up two adverbs appropriate for matching many data formats like .bib files:
:ratchet (alias :r)
:sigspace (alias :s)
Ratcheting (:r / :ratchet) tells the compiler that when an "atom" (a sub-pattern in a rule that is treated as one unit) has matched, there can be no going back on that. If an atom further on in the pattern in the same rule fails, then the whole rule immediately fails.
This eliminates any risk of the "pathological backtracking" discussed earlier.
Significant space handling (:s / :sigspace) tells the compiler that an atom followed by literal spacing that is in the pattern indicates that a "token" boundary pattern, aka ws should be appended to the atom.
Thus this adverb deals with tokenizing. Did you spot that I'd dropped the \s+ from the pattern compared to the original one in the one-liner? That's because :sigspace, which use of rule implies, takes care of that automatically:
say 'x#y x # y' ~~ m:g:s /x\#y/; # (｢x#y｣) <-- only one match
say 'x#y x # y' ~~ m:g /x \# y/; # (｢x#y｣) <-- only one match
say 'x#y x # y' ~~ m:g:s /x \# y/; # (｢x#y｣ ｢x # y｣) <-- two matches
You might wonder why I've reverted to using / ... / to show these two examples. Turns out that while you can use rule { ... } with the .match method (described in the next section), you can't use rule with m. No problem; I just used :s instead to get the desired effect. (I didn't bother to use :r for ratcheting because it makes no difference for this pattern/input.)
To round out this dive into the difference between classic regexes (which can also be written regex { ... }) and rule rules, let me mention the other main option: token. The token declarator implies the :ratchet adverb, but not the :sigspace one. So it also eliminates the pathological backtracking risk of a regex (or / ... /) but, just like a regex, and unlike a rule, a token ignores whitespace used by a dev in writing out the rule's pattern.
my \articles = input .match: pattern, :global
This line uses the method form (.match) of the m routine used in the one-liner solution.
The result of a match when :global is used is a list of Match objects rather than just one. In this case we'll get three, corresponding to the three articles in the input file.
for articles -> $/ { put "$0: $1\n" }
This for statement successively binds a Match object corresponding to each of the three articles in your sample file to the symbol $/ inside the code block ({ ... }).
Per Raku doc on $/, "$/ is the match variable, so it usually contains objects of type Match.". It also provides some other conveniences; we take advantage of one of these conveniences related to numbered captures:
The pattern that was matched earlier contained two pairs of parentheses;
The overall Match object ($/) provides access to these two Positional captures via Positional subscripting (postfix []), so within the for's block, $/[0] and $/[1] provide access to the two Positional captures for each article;
Raku aliases $0 to $/[0] (and so on) for convenience, so most devs use the shorter syntax.
Interlude
This would be a good time to take a break. Maybe just a cuppa, or return here another day.
The last part of this answer builds up and thoroughly explains a grammar-based approach. Reading it may provide further insight into the solutions above and will show how to extend Raku's parsing to more complex scenarios.
But first...
A "boring" practical approach
I want to parse this with Raku. Can anyone help?
Raku may make writing parsers less tedious than with other tools. But less tedious is still tedious. And Raku parsing is currently slow.
In most cases, the practical answer when you want to parse well known formats and/or really big files is to find and use an existing parser. This might mean not using Raku at all, or using an existing Raku module, or using an existing non-Raku parser in Raku.
A suggested starting point is to search for the file format on modules.raku.org or raku.land. Look for a publicly shared parsing module already specifically packaged for Raku for the given file format. Then do some simple testing to see if you have a good solution.
At the time of writing there are no matches for 'bib'.
Even if you don't know C, there's almost certainly a 'bib' parsing C library already available that you can use. And it's likely to be the fastest solution. It's typically surprisingly easy to use an external library in your own Raku code, even if it's written in another programming language.
Using C libs is done using a feature called NativeCall. The doc I just linked may well be too much or too little, but please feel free to visit the freenode IRC channel #raku and ask for help. (Or post an SO question.) We're friendly folk. :)
If a C lib isn't right for a particular use case, then you can probably still use packages written in some other language such as Perl, Python, Ruby, Lua, etc. via their respective Inline::* language adapters.
The steps are:
Install a package (that's written in Perl, Python or whatever);
Make sure it runs on your system using a compiler of the language it's written for;
Install the appropriate Inline language adapter that lets Raku run packages in that other language;
Use the "foreign" package as if it were a Raku package containing exported Raku functions, classes, objects, values, etc.
(At least, that's the theory. Again, if you need help, please pop on the IRC channel or post an SO question.)
The Perl adapter is the most mature so I'll use that as an example. Let's say you use Perl's Text::BibTex packages and now wish to use Raku with that package. First, setup it up as it's supposed to be per its README. Then, in Raku, write something like:
use Text::BibTeX::BibFormat:from<Perl5>;
...
#blocks = $entry.format;
Explanation of these two lines:
The first line is how you tell Raku that you wish to load a Perl module.
(It won't work unless Inline::Perl5 is already installed and working. But it should be if you're using a popular Raku bundle. And if not, you should at least have the module installer zef so you can run zef install Inline::Perl5.)
The last line is just a mechanical Raku translation of the #blocks = $entry->format; line from the SYNOPSIS of the Perl package Text::BibTeX::BibFormat.
A Raku grammar / parser
OK. Enough "boring" practical advice. Let's now try have some fun creating a grammar based Raku parser good enough for the example from your question.
► use glot.io to run the code below
unit grammar bib;
rule TOP { <article>* }
rule article { '#article{' $<id>=<-[,]>+ ','
<kv-pairs>
'}'
}
rule kv-pairs { <kv-pair>* % ',' }
rule kv-pair { $<key>=\w* '={' ~ '}' $<value>=<-[}]>* }
With this grammar in place, we can now write something like:
die "Use CommaIDE?" unless bib .parsefile: 'derm.bib';
for $<article> -> $/ { put "$<id>: $<kv-pairs><kv-pair>[0]<value>\n" }
to generate exactly the same output as the previous solutions.
When a match or parse fails, by default Raku just returns Nil, which is, well, rather terse feedback.
There are several nice debugging options to figure out what's going on with a regex or grammar, but the best option by far is to use CommaIDE's Grammar-Live-View.
If you haven't already installed and used Comma, you're missing one of the best parts of using Raku. The features built in to the free version of Comma ("Community Edition") include outstanding grammar development / tracing / debugging tools.
Explanation of the 'bib' grammar
unit grammar bib;
The unit declarator is used at the start of a source file to tell Raku that the rest of the file declares a named package of code of a particular type.
The grammar keyword specifies a grammar. A grammar is like a class, but contains named "rules" -- not just named methods, but also named regexs, tokens, and rules. A grammar also inherits a bunch of general purpose rules from a base grammar.
rule TOP {
Unless you specify otherwise, parsing methods (.parse and .parsefile) that are called on a grammar start by calling the grammar's rule named TOP (declared with a rule, token, regex, or method declarator).
As a, er, rule of thumb, if you don't know if you should be using a rule, regex, token, or method for some bit of parsing, use a token. (Unlike regex patterns, tokens don't risk pathological backtracking.)
But I've used a rule. Like token patterns, rules also avoid the pathological backtracking risk. But, in addition rules interpret some whitespace in the pattern to be significant, in a natural manner. (See this SO answer for precise details.)
rules are typically appropriate towards the top of the parse tree. (Tokens are typically appropriate towards the leaves.)
rule TOP { <article>* }
The space at the end of the rule (between the * and pattern closing }) means the grammar will match any amount of whitespace at the end of the input.
<article> invokes another named rule in this grammar.
Because it looks like one should allow for any number of articles per bib file, I added a * (zero or more quantifier) at the end of <article>*.
rule article { '#article{' $<id>=<-[,]>+ ','
<kv-pairs>
'}'
}
If you compare this article pattern with the ones I wrote for the earlier Raku rules based solutions, you'll see various changes:
Rule in original one-liner
Rule in this grammar
Kept pattern as simple as possible.
Introduced <kv-pairs> and closing }
No attempt to echo layout of your input.
Visually echoes your input.
<[...]> is the Raku syntax for a character class, like[...] in traditional regex syntax. It's more powerful, but for now all you need to know is that the - in <-[,]> indicates negation, i.e. the same as the ^ in the [^,] syntax of ye olde regex. So <-[,]>+ attempts a match of one or more characters, none of which are ,.
$<id>=<-[,]>+ tells Raku to attempt to match the quantified "atom" on the right of the = (i.e. the <-[,]>+ bit) and store the results at the key <id> within the current match object. The latter will be hung from a branch of the parse tree; we'll get to precisely where later.
rule kv-pairs { <kv-pair>* % ',' }
This pattern illustrates one of several convenient Raku regex features. It declares you want to match zero or more kv-pairs separated by commas.
(In more detail, the % regex infix operator requires that matches of the quantified atom on its left are separated by the atom on its right.)
rule kv-pair { $<key>=\w* '={' ~ '}' $<value>=<-[}]>* }
The new bit here is '={' ~ '}'. This is another convenient regex feature. The regex Tilde operator parses a delimited structure (in this case one with a ={ opener and } closer) with the bit between the delimiters matching the quantified regex atom on the right of the closer. This confers several benefits but the main one is that error messages can be clearer.
I could have used the ~ approach in the /.../ regex in the one-liner, and vice-versa. But I wanted this grammar solution to continue the progression toward illustrating "better practice" idioms.
Constructing / deconstructing the parse tree
for $<article> { put "$<id>: $<kv-pairs><kv-pair>[0]<value>\n" }`
$<article>, $<id> etc. refer to named match objects that are stored somewhere in the "parse tree". But how did they get there? And exactly where is "there"?
Returning to the top of the grammar:
rule TOP {
If a .parse is successful, a single 'TOP' level match object is returned. (After a parse is complete the variable $/ is also bound to that top match object.) During parsing a tree will have been formed by hanging other match objects off this top match object, and then others hung off those, and so on.
Addition of match objects to a parse tree is done by adding either a single generated match object, or a list of them, to either a Positional (numbered) or Associative (named) capture of a "parent" match object. This process is explained below.
rule TOP { <article>* }
<article> invokes a match of the rule named article. An invocation of the rule <article> has two effects:
Raku tries to match the rule.
If it matches, Raku captures that match by generating a corresponding match object and adding it to the parse tree under the key <article> of the parent match object. (In this case the parent is the top match object.)
If the successfully matched pattern had been specified as just <article>, rather than as <article>*, then only one match would have been attempted, and only one value, a single match object, would have been generated and added under the key <article>.
But the pattern was <article>*, not merely <article>. So Raku attempts to match the article rule as many times as it can. If it matches at all, then a list of one or more match objects is stored as the value of the <article> key. (See my answer to "How do I access the captures within a match?" for a more detailed explanation.)
$<article> is short for $/<article>. It refers to the value stored under the <article> key of the current match object (which is stored in $/). In this case that value is a list of 3 match objects corresponding to the 3 articles in the input.
rule article { '#article{' $<id>=<-[,]>+ ','
Just as the top match object has several match objects hung off of it (the three captures of article matches that are stored under the top match object's <article> key), so too do each of those three article match objects have their own "child" match objects hanging off of them.
To see how that works, let's consider just the first of the three article match objects, the one corresponding to the text that starts "#article{garg2017patch,...". The article rule matches this article. As it's doing that matching, the $<id>=<-[,]>+ part tells Raku to store the match object corresponding to the id part of the article ("garg2017patch") under that article match object's <id> key.
Hopefully this is enough (quite possibly way too much!) and I can at last exhaustively (exhaustingly?) explain the last line of code, which, once again, was:
for $<article> -> $/ { put "$<id>: $<kv-pairs><kv-pair>[0]<value>\n" }`
At the level of the for, the variable $/ refers to the top of the parse tree generated by the parse that just completed. Thus $<article>, which is shorthand for $/<article>, refers to the list of three article match objects.
The for then iterates over that list, binding $/ within the lexical scope of the -> $/ { ... } block to each of those 3 article match objects in turn.
The $<id> bit is shorthand for $/<id>, which inside the block refers to the <id> key within the article match object that $/ has been bound to. In other words, $<id> inside the block is equivalent to $<article><id> outside the block.
The $<kv-pairs><kv-pair>[0]<value> follows the same scheme, albeit with more levels and a positional child (the [0]) in the midst of all the key (named/ associative) children.
(Note that there was no need for the article pattern to include a $<kv-pairs>=<kv-pairs> because Raku just presumes a pattern of the form <foo> should store its results under the key <foo>. If you wish to disable that, write a pattern with a non-alpha character as the first symbol. For example, use <.foo> if you want to have exactly the same matching effect as <foo> but just not store the matched input in the parse tree.)
Phew!
When the automatically generated parse tree isn't what you want
As if all the above were not enough, I need to mention one more thing.
The parse tree strongly reflects the tree structure of the grammar's rules calling one another from the top rule down to leaf rules. But the resulting structure is sometimes inconvenient.
Often one still wants a tree, but a simpler one, or perhaps some non-tree data structure.
The primary mechanism for generating exactly what you want from a parse, when the automatic results aren't suitable, is make. (This can be used in code blocks inside rules or factored out into Action classes that are separate from grammars.)
In turn, the primary use case for make is to generate a sparse tree of nodes hanging off the parse tree, such as an AST.
Footnotes
[1] Basic Raku is good for exploratory programming, spikes, one-offs, PoCs and other scenarios where the emphasis is on quickly producing working code that can be refactored later if need be.
[2] Raku's regexes/rules scale up to arbitrary parsing, as introduced in the latter half of this answer. This contrasts with past generations of regex which could not.[3]
[3] That said, ZA̡͊͠͝LGΌ ISͮ̂҉̯͈͕̹̘̱ TO͇̹̺ͅƝ̴ȳ̳ TH̘Ë͖́̉ ͠P̯͍̭O̚N̐Y̡ remains a great and relevant read. Not because Raku rules can't parse (X)HTML. In principle they can. But for a task as monumental as correctly handling full arbitrary in-the-wild XHTML I would strongly recommend you use an existing parser written expressly for that purpose. And this applies generally for existing formats; it's best not to reinvent the wheel. But the good news with Raku rules is that if you need to write a full parser, not just a bunch of regexes, you can do so, and it need not involve going insane!
I'm writing a program where I need to parse a JavaScript source file, extract some facts, and insert/replace portions of the code. A simplified description of the sorts of things I'd need to do is, given this code:
foo(['a', 'b', 'c']);
Extract 'a', 'b', and 'c' and rewrite the code as:
foo('bar', [0, 1, 2]);
I am using ANTLR for my parsing needs, producing C# 3 code. Somebody else had already contributed a JavaScript grammar. The parsing of the source code is working.
The problem I'm encountering is figuring out how to actually properly analyze and modify the source file. Each approach that I try to take in actually solving the problem leads me to a dead end. I can't help but think that I'm not using the tool as it's intended or am just too much of a novice when it comes to dealing with ASTs.
My first approach was to parse using a TokenRewriteStream and implement the EnterRule_* partial methods for the rules I'm interested in. While this seems to make modifying the token stream pretty easy, there is not enough contextual information for my analysis. It seems that all I have access to is a flat stream of tokens, which doesn't tell me enough about the entire structure of code. For example, to detect whether the foo function is being called, simply looking at the first token wouldn't work because that would also falsely match:
a.b.foo();
To allow me to do more sophisticated code analysis, my second approach was to modify the grammar with rewrite rules to produce more of a tree. Now, the first sample code block produces this:
Program
CallExpression
Identifier('foo')
ArgumentList
ArrayLiteral
StringLiteral('a')
StringLiteral('b')
StringLiteral('c')
This is working great for analyzing the code. However, now I am unable to easily rewrite the code. Sure, I could modify the tree structure to represent the code I want, but I can't use this to output source code. I had hoped that the token associated with each node would at least give me enough information to know where in the original text I would need to make the modifications, but all I get are token indexes or line/column numbers. To use the line and column numbers, I would have to make an awkward second pass through the source code.
I suspect I'm missing something in understanding how to properly use ANTLR to do what I need. Is there a more proper way for me to solve this problem?
What you are trying to do is called program transformation, that is, the automated generation of one program from another. What you are doing "wrong" is assuming is parser is all you need, and discovering that it isn't and that you have to fill in the gap.
Tools that do that this well have parsers (to build ASTs), means to modify the ASTs (both procedural and pattern directed), and prettyprinters which convert the (modified) AST back into legal source code. You seem to be struggling with the the fact that ANTLR doesn't come with prettyprinters; that's not part of its philosophy; ANTLR is a (fine) parser-generator. Other answers have suggested using ANTLR's "string templates", which are not by themselves prettyprinters, but can be used to implement one, at the price of implementing one. This harder to do than it looks; see my SO answer on compiling an AST back to source code.
The real issue here is the widely made but false assumption that "if I have a parser, I'm well on my way to building complex program analysis and transformation tools." See my essay on Life After Parsing for a long discussion of this; basically, you need a lot more tooling that "just" a parser to do this, unless you want to rebuild a significant fraction of the infrastructure by yourself instead of getting on with your task. Other useful features of practical program transformation systems include typically source-to-source transformations, which considerably simplify the problem of finding and replacing complex patterns in trees.
For instance, if you had source-to-source transformation capabilities (of our tool, the DMS Software Reengineering Toolkit, you'd be able to write parts of your example code changes using these DMS transforms:
domain ECMAScript.
tag replace; -- says this is a special kind of temporary tree
rule barize(function_name:IDENTIFIER,list:expression_list,b:body):
expression->expression
= " \function_name ( '[' \list ']' ) "
-> "\function_name( \firstarg\(\function_name\), \replace\(\list\))";
rule replace_unit_list(s:character_literal):
expression_list -> expression_list
replace(s) -> compute_index_for(s);
rule replace_long_list(s:character_list, list:expression_list):
expression_list -> expression_list
"\replace\(\s\,\list)-> "compute_index_for\(\s\),\list";
with rule-external "meta" procedures "first_arg" (which knows how to compute "bar" given the identifier "foo" [I'm guessing you want to do this), and "compute_index_for" which given a string literals, knows what integer to replace it with.
Individual rewrite rules have parameter lists "(....)" in which slots representing subtrees are named, a left-hand side acting as a pattern to match, and an right hand side acting as replacement, both usually quoted in metaquotes " which seperates rewrite-rule language text from target-language (e.g. JavaScript) text. There's lots of meta-escapes ** found inside the metaquotes which indicate a special rewrite-rule-language item. Typically these are parameter names, and represent whatever type of name tree the parameter represents, or represent an external meta procedure call (such as first_arg; you'll note the its argument list ( , ) is metaquoted!), or finally, a "tag" such as "replace", which is a peculiar kind of tree that represent future intent to do more transformations.
This particular set of rules works by replacing a candidate function call by the barized version, with the additional intent "replace" to transform the list. The other two transformations realize the intent by transforming "replace" away by processing elements of the list one at a time, and pushing the replace further down the list until it finally falls off the end and the replacement is done. (This is the transformational equivalent of a loop).
Your specific example may vary somewhat since you really weren't precise about the details.
Having applied these rules to modify the parsed tree, DMS can then trivially prettyprint the result (the default behavior in some configurations is "parse to AST, apply rules until exhaustion, prettyprint AST" because this is handy).
You can see a complete process of "define language", "define rewrite rules", "apply rules and prettyprint" at (High School) Algebra as a DMS domain.
Other program transformation systems include TXL and Stratego. We imagine DMS as the industrial strength version of these, in which we have built all that infrastructure including many standard language parsers and prettyprinters.
So it's turning out that I can actually use a rewriting tree grammar and insert/replace tokens using a TokenRewriteStream. Plus, it's actually really easy to do. My code resembles the following:
var charStream = new ANTLRInputStream(stream);
var lexer = new JavaScriptLexer(charStream);
var tokenStream = new TokenRewriteStream(lexer);
var parser = new JavaScriptParser(tokenStream);
var program = parser.program().Tree as Program;
var dependencies = new List<IModule>();
var functionCall = (
from callExpression in program.Children.OfType<CallExpression>()
where callExpression.Children[0].Text == "foo"
select callExpression
).Single();
var argList = functionCall.Children[1] as ArgumentList;
var array = argList.Children[0] as ArrayLiteral;
tokenStream.InsertAfter(argList.Token.TokenIndex, "'bar', ");
for (var i = 0; i < array.Children.Count(); i++)
{
tokenStream.Replace(
(array.Children[i] as StringLiteral).Token.TokenIndex,
i.ToString());
}
var rewrittenCode = tokenStream.ToString();
Have you looked at the string template library. It is by the same person who wrote ANTLR and they are intended to work together. It sounds like it would suit do what your looking for ie. output matched grammar rules as formatted text.
Here is an article on translation via ANTLR
I'm making my own javascript-based programming language (yeah, it is crazy, but it's for learn only... maybe?). Well, I'm reading about parsers and the first pass is to convert the code source to tokens, like:
if(x > 5)
return true;
Tokenizer to:
T_IF "if"
T_LPAREN "("
T_IDENTIFIER "x"
T_GT ">"
T_NUMBER "5"
T_RPAREN ")"
T_IDENTIFIER "return"
T_TRUE "true"
T_TERMINATOR ";"
I don't know if my logic is correct for that for while. On my parser it is even better (or not?) and translate to it (yeah, multidimensional array):
T_IF "if"
T_EXPRESSION ...
T_IDENTIFIER "x"
T_GT ">"
T_NUMBER "5"
T_CLOSURE ...
T_IDENTIFIER "return"
T_TRUE "true"
I have some doubts:
Is my way better or worse that the original way? Note that my code will be read and compiled (translated to another language, like PHP), instead of interpreted all the time.
After I tokenizer, what I need do exactly? I'm really lost on this pass!
There are some good tutorial to learn how I can do it?
Well, is that. Bye!
Generally, you want to separate the functions of the tokeniser (also called a lexer) from other stages of your compiler or interpreter. The reason for this is basic modularity: each pass consumes one kind of thing (e.g., characters) and produces another one (e.g., tokens).
So you’ve converted your characters to tokens. Now you want to convert your flat list of tokens to meaningful nested expressions, and this is what is conventionally called parsing. For a JavaScript-like language, you should look into recursive descent parsing. For parsing expressions with infix operators of different precedence levels, Pratt parsing is very useful, and you can fall back on ordinary recursive descent parsing for special cases.
Just to give you a more concrete example based on your case, I’ll assume you can write two functions: accept(token) and expect(token), which test the next token in the stream you’ve created. You’ll make a function for each type of statement or expression in the grammar of your language. Here’s Pythonish pseudocode for a statement() function, for instance:
def statement():
if accept("if"):
x = expression()
y = statement()
return IfStatement(x, y)
elif accept("return"):
x = expression()
return ReturnStatement(x)
elif accept("{")
xs = []
while True:
xs.append(statement())
if not accept(";"):
break
expect("}")
return Block(xs)
else:
error("Invalid statement!")
This gives you what’s called an abstract syntax tree (AST) of your program, which you can then manipulate (optimisation and analysis), output (compilation), or run (interpretation).
Most toolkits split the complete process into two separate parts
lexer (aka. tokenizer)
parser (aka. grammar)
The tokenizer will split the input data into tokens. The parser will only operate on the token "stream" and build the structure.
Your question seems to be focused on the tokenizer. But your second solution mixes the grammar parser and the tokenizer into one step. Theoretically this is also possible but for a beginner it is much easier to do it the same way as most other tools/framework: keep the steps separate.
To your first solution: I would tokenize your example like this:
T_KEYWORD_IF "if"
T_LPAREN "("
T_IDENTIFIER "x"
T_GT ">"
T_LITARAL "5"
T_RPAREN ")"
T_KEYWORD_RET "return"
T_KEYWORD_TRUE "true"
T_TERMINATOR ";"
In most languages keywords cannot be used as method names, variable names and so on. This is reflected already on the tokenizer level (T_KEYWORD_IF, T_KEYWORD_RET, T_KEYWORD_TRUE).
The next level would take this stream and - by applying a formal grammar - would build some datastructure (often called AST - Abstract Syntax Tree) which might look like this:
IfStatement:
Expression:
BinaryOperator:
Operator: T_GT
LeftOperand:
IdentifierExpression:
"x"
RightOperand:
LiteralExpression
5
IfBlock
ReturnStatement
ReturnExpression
LiteralExpression
"true"
ElseBlock (empty)
Implementing the parser by hand is usually done by some frameworks. Implementing something like that by hand and efficiently is usually done at a university in the better part of a semester. So you really should use some kind of framework.
The input for a grammar parser framework is usually a formal grammar in some kind of BNF. Your "if" part migh look like this:
IfStatement: T_KEYWORD_IF T_LPAREN Expression T_RPAREN Statement ;
Expression: LiteralExpression | BinaryExpression | IdentifierExpression | ... ;
BinaryExpression: LeftOperand BinaryOperator RightOperand;
....
That's only to get the idea. Parsing a realworld-language like Javascript correctly is not an easy task. But funny.
Is my way better or worse that the original way? Note that my code will be read and compiled (translated to another language, like PHP), instead of interpreted all the time.
What's the original way ? There are many different ways to implement languages. I think yours is fine actually, I once tried to build a language myself that translated to C#, the hack programming language. Many language compilers translate to an intermediate language, it's quite common.
After I tokenizer, what I need do exactly? I'm really lost on this pass!
After tokenizing, you need to parse it. Use some good lexer / parser framework, such as the Boost.Spirit, or Coco, or whatever. There are hundreds of them. Or you can implement your own lexer, but that takes time and resources. There are many ways to parse code, I generally rely on recursive descent parsing.
Next you need to do Code Generation. That's the most difficult part in my opinion. There are tools for that too, but you can do it manually if you want to, I tried to do it in my project, but it was pretty basic and buggy, there's some helpful code here and here.
There are some good tutorial to learn how I can do it?
As I suggested earlier, use tools to do it. There are a lot of pretty good well-documented parser frameworks. For further information, you can try asking some people who know about this stuff. #DeadMG , over at the Lounge C++ is building a programming language called "Wide". You may try consulting him.
Let's say I have this statement in a programming language:
if (0 < 1) then
print("Hello")
The lexer will translate it into:
keyword: if
num: 0
op: <
num: 1
keyword: then
keyword: print
string: "Hello"
The parser will then take the information (aka "Token Stream") and make this:
if:
expression:
<:
0, 1
then:
print:
"Hello"
I don't know if this will help or not, but I hope it does.
The goal of my application is to validate an sql code and generate,in the mean time, from that code a formatted one with some modification.For example this where clause :
where e.student_name= c.contact_name and ( c.address = " nefta"
or c.address=" tozeur ") and e.age <18
we will have as formatted output something like that :
where e.student_name= c.contact_name and (c.address=trim("nefta")
or c.address=trim("tozeur") ) and e.age <18
I hope I've explained my aim well
The problem is grammars may contain recursive rules which make the rewrite task unreliable ; for instance in my sql grammar i have this :
search_condition : search_condition OR search_condition{clbck_or}
| search_condition AND search_condition{clbck_and}
| NOT search_condition {clbck_not}
| '(' search_condition ')'{clbck__}
| predicate {clbck_pre}
;
Knowing that I specified a precedence priority to solve shift reduce problems
%left OR
%left AND
%left NOT
So back on the last example ; my clause where will be consumed this way:
c.address="nefta"or c.address="tozeur" -> search_condition
(c.address="nefta"or c.address="tozeur")->search_condition
e.student_name= c.contact_name and (c.address="nefta"or c.address="tozeur")-> search_condition
... and e.age<18-> search_condition
You can by the way understand that it's tough to rebuild the input stream referring to callbacks triggered by each reduction cause the order is not the same.
Any help for this problem ?
Your question is a bit vague, so I'm guessing that you actually print in your clbck_or (), etc. The "common" way to which wildplasser has alluded is to use "semantic values", i. e. (untested):
search_condition : search_condition OR search_condition{$$ = clbck_or($1, $3);}
| search_condition AND search_condition{$$ = clbck_and($1, $3);}
| NOT search_condition {$$ = clbck_not($2);}
| '(' search_condition ')'{$$ = clbck__($2);}
| predicate {$$ = clbck_pre($1);}
;
If you're using Bison, the manual has a fine example in the section "Infix Notation Calculator: `calc'". With strings and C, you will have to add some memory handling.
Bison is good at parsing, and with some manual help, good at building a custom syntax tree. After that, its up to you to do what you want with the tree. The good news is you can do whatever you want. The bad news is you still have to build a lot of machinery to do what you want. Your basic problem of regenerating source code is called "prettyprinting"; see my SO answer on how to prettyprint to understand what it takes to do this, including all the peccadillos of lexical syntax (you don't to lose the escapes in your literal strings, right?). You didn't at all address how to find the construct you wanted to change in the tree, or how you'd smash the tree to change it.
If you don't want to do all of that, then what you really want is a program transformation system, which is good at parsing, building a syntax tree for you (so you don't have to think about it, SQL is pretty big grammar), will let you find patterns in the tree in terms of SQL syntax you are used to, make tree changes without knowing much about the shape of the tree, and can finally regenerate valid source text by prettyprint as I describe in my answer link above. (A program transformation systems essentially includes a parser as a subroutine).
Our DMS Software Reengineering Toolkit is such a program transformation system. It has a set of predefined language definitions including SQL2011 and means for configuring for a particular dialect.
Using DMS source-to-source syntax rules, you could carry out the change in your example with the following rule:
domain SQL;
rule trim_c_members(f: identifier, s: string):condition->condition
= " c.\f = \s " -> " c.\f = trim(\s) ";
This is DMS Rule language (meta) syntax to describe a rewrite on ("domain") SQL code.
The rule has a name (because in complex application there's lot of rules) and it
as syntactic place holders "f" and "s"; it rewrites only conditions in the code.
The quotes are RSL meta-quotes; stuff inside is SQL with RSL metavariables "\f"
and "\s"; stuff outside is RSL rule syntax. What the rule says is,
"for any condition on a variable explicitly named 'c', with any field f,
if that field is compared by equality to some literal string, then replace
the literal string by 'trim' applied to the literal string".
I left out some code that basically says, "apply this rule to the entire tree, and don't apply it twice in the same place". That "strategy" is one of many built into DMS.
There's the question of how does the rule work. that is accomplished by DMS applying the SQL parser to the meta-quoted strings, to produce "pattern" syntax trees with placeholders where the metavariables are written. The left hand side pattern tree is then matched against the target tree with placeholder referring to subtrees; the right hand tree is spliced in where the left tree matched, and the placeholder subtrees transferred. So, you the programmer see surface sytax that you know and love; the tool works with trees and so it isn't confused by text.
Now, I don't think my rule matches exactly your intent, but that's partly because I can't guess your actual intent. You can write other rules if this isn't what you wanted.
This rule is purely driven by syntax; one can add a semantic predicate (not shown) if you want more complicated conditions to apply to the rule (e.g, the variable has to be ones only in certain scopes you define), and that gets messier to say. But it is much simpler and far easier to read than C code that climbs over the AST (notice you didn't see the AST here?) and tries to figure all this out.
The parsing and prettyprinting happens before and after rule application; there's a lot of machinery required to implement all that, but that machinery is built into DMS (e.g., it has something like [but more powerful] than Bison built in), and for predefined domains such as SQL, all the pretty printing works has been preconfigured, too.
If you want to get a better sense of what it takes to go full cycle with DMS (define your own language parser, define a pretty printer, define complicated rules), here's a nice and complete example of defining and symbolically simplifying calculus using DMS.