i am reading the Definitive ANTLR reference by Terence Parr, where he says:
Semantic predicates are a powerful
means of recognizing context-sensitive
language structures by allowing
runtime information to drive
recognition
But the examples in the book are very simple. What i need to know is: can ANTLR parse context-sensitive rules like:
xAy --> xBy
If ANTLR can't parse these rules, is there is another tool that deals with context-sensitive grammars?
ANTLR parses only grammars which are LL(*). It can't parse using grammars for full context-sensitive languages such as the example you provided. I think what Parr meant was that ANTLR can parse some languages that require some (left) context constraints.
In particular, one can use semantic predicates on "reduction actions" (we do this for GLR parsers
used by our DMS Software Reengineering Toolkit but the idea is similar for ANTLR, I think) to inspect any data collected by the parser so far, either as ad hoc side effects of other semantic actions, or in a partially-built parse tree.
For our DMS-based DMS-based Fortran front end, there's a context-sensitive check to ensure that DO-loops are properly lined up. Consider:
DO 20, I= ...
DO 10, J = ...
...
20 CONTINUE
10 CONTINUE
From the point of view of the parser, the lexical stream looks like this:
DO <number> , <variable> = ...
DO <number> , <variable> = ...
...
<number> CONTINUE
<number> CONTINUE
How can the parser then know which DO statement goes with which CONTINUE statement?
(saying that each DO matches its closest CONTINUE won't work, because FORTRAN can
share a CONTINUE statement with multiple DO-heads).
We use a semantic predicate "CheckMatchingNumbers" on the reduction for the following rule:
block = 'DO' <number> rest_of_do_head newline
block_of_statements
<number> 'CONTINUE' newline ; CheckMatchingNumbers
to check that the number following the DO keyword, and the number following the CONTINUE keyword match. If the semantic predicate says they match, then a reduction for this rule succeeds and we've aligned the DO head with correct CONTINUE. If the predicate fails, then no reduction is proposed (and this rule is removed from candidates for parsing the local context); some other set of rules has to parse the text.
The actual rules and semantic predicates to handle FORTRAN nesting with shared continues is more complex than this but I think this makes the point.
What you want is full context-sensitive parsing engine. I know people have built them, but I don't know of any full implementations, and don't expect them to be fast.
I did follow Quinn Taylor Jackson's MetaS grammar system for awhile; it sounded like a practical attempt to come close.
It is comparatively easy to write a context-sensitive parser in Prolog. This program parses the string [a,is,less,than,b,and,b,is,less,than,c], converting it into [a,<,b,<,c]:
:- initialization(main).
:- set_prolog_flag('double_quotes','chars').
main :-
rewrite_system([a,is,less,than,b,and,b,is,less,than,c],X),writeln('\nFinal output:'),writeln(X).
rewrite_rule([[A,<,B],and,[B,<,C]],[A,<,B,<,C]).
rewrite_rule([A,is,less,than,B],[A,<,B]).
rewrite_rule([[A,<,B],and,C,than,D],[[A,<,B],and,A,is,C,than,D]).
rewrite_rule([A,<,B],[[A,<,B]]).
rewritten(A) :- atom(A);bool(A).
bool(A) :- atom(A).
bool([A,<,B,<,C]) :- atom(A),atom(B),atom(C).
bool([A,and,B]) :- bool(A),bool(B).
% this predicate is from https://stackoverflow.com/a/8312742/975097
replace(ToReplace, ToInsert, List, Result) :-
once(append([Left, ToReplace, Right], List)),
append([Left, ToInsert, Right], Result).
rewrite_system(Input,Output) :-
rewritten(Input),Input=Output;
rewrite_rule(A,B),
replace(A,B,Input,Input1),
writeln(Input1),
rewrite_system(Input1,Output).
Using the same algorithm, I also wrote an adaptive parser that "learns" new rewrite rules from its input.
Related
I am writing a parser in Bison for a language which has the following constructs, among others:
self-dispatch: [identifier arguments]
dispatch: [expression . identifier arguments]
string slicing: expression[expression,expression] - similar to Python.
arguments is a comma-separated list of expressions, which can be empty too. All of the above are expressions on their own, too.
My problem is that I am not sure how to parse both [method [other_method]] and [someString[idx1, idx2].toInt] or if it is possible to do this at all with an LALR(1) parser.
To be more precise, let's take the following example: [a[b]] (call method a with the result of method b). When it reaches the state [a . [b]] (the lookahead is the second [), it won't know whether to reduce a (which has already been reduced to identifier) to expression because something like a[b,c] might follow (which could itself be reduced to expression and continue with the second construct from above) or to keep it identifier (and shift it) because a list of arguments will follow (such as [b] in this case).
Is this shift/reduce conflict due to the way I expressed this grammar or is it not possible to parse all of these constructs with an LALR(1) parser?
And, a more general question, how can one prove that a language is/is not parsable by a particular type of parser?
Assuming your grammar is unambiguous (which the part you describe appears to be) then your best bet is to specify a %glr-parser. Since in most cases, the correct parse will be forced after only a few tokens, the overhead should not be noticeable, and the advantage is that you do not need to complicate either the grammar or the construction of the AST.
The one downside is that bison cannot verify that the grammar is unambiguous -- in general, this is not possible -- and it is not easy to prove. If it turns out that some input is ambiguous, the GLR parser will generate an error, so a good test suite is important.
Proving that the language is not LR(1) would be tricky, and I suspect that it would be impossible because the language probably is recognizable with an LALR(1) parser. (Impossible to tell without seeing the entire grammar, though.) But parsing (outside of CS theory) needs to create a correct parse tree in order to be useful, and the sort of modifications required to produce an LR grammar will also modify the AST, requiring a post-parse fixup. The difficultly in creating a correct AST spring from the difference in precedence between
a[b[c],d]
and
[a[b[c],d]]
In the first (subset) case, b binds to its argument list [c] and the comma has lower precedence; in the end, b[c] and d are sibling children of the slice. In the second case (method invocation), the comma is part of the argument list and binds more tightly than the method application; b, [c] and d are siblings in a method application. But you cannot decide the shape of the parse tree until an arbitrarily long input (since d could be any expression).
That's all a bit hand-wavey since "precedence" is not formally definable, and there are hacks which could make it possible to adjust the tree. Since the LR property is not really composable, it is really possible to provide a more rigorous analysis. But regardless, the GLR parser is likely to be the simplest and most robust solution.
One small point for future reference: CFGs are not just a programming tool; they also serve the purpose of clearly communicating the grammar in question. Nirmally, if you want to describe your language, you are better off using a clear CFG than trying to describe informally. Of course, meaningful non-terminal names will help, and a few examples never hurt, but the essence of the grammar is in the formal description and omitting that makes it harder for others to "be helpful".
Is there a parser generator that also implements the inverse direction, i.e. unparsing domain objects (a.k.a. pretty-printing) from the same grammar specification? As far as I know, ANTLR does not support this.
I have implemented a set of Invertible Parser Combinators in Java and Kotlin. A parser is written pretty much in LL-1 style and it provides a parse- and a print-method where the latter provides the pretty printer.
You can find the project here: https://github.com/searles/parsing
Here is a tutorial: https://github.com/searles/parsing/blob/master/tutorial.md
And here is a parser/pretty printer for mathematical expressions: https://github.com/searles/parsing/blob/master/src/main/java/at/searles/demo/DemoInvert.kt
Take a look at Invertible syntax descriptions: Unifying parsing and pretty printing.
There are several parser generators that include an implementation of an unparser. One of them is the nearley parser generator for context-free grammars.
It is also possible to implement bidirectional transformations of source code using definite clause grammars. In SWI-Prolog, the phrase/2 predicate can convert an input text into a parse tree and vice-versa.
Our DMS Software Reengineering Toolkit does precisely this (and provides a lot of additional support for analyzing/transforming code). It does this by decorating a language grammar with additional attributes, producing what is called an attribute grammar. We use a special DSL to write these rules to make them convenient to write.
It helps to know that DMS produces a tree based directly on the grammar.
Each DMS grammar rule is paired with with so-called "prettyprinting" rule. Each prettyprinting rule describes how to "prettyprint" the syntactic element and sub-elements recognized by its corresponding grammar rule. The prettyprinting process essentially manufactures or combines rectangular boxes of text horizontally or vertically (with optional indentation), with leaves producing unit-height boxes containing the literal value of the leaf (keyword, operator, identifier, constant, etc.
As an example, one might write the following DMS grammar rule and matching prettyprinting rule:
statement = 'for' '(' assignment ';' assignment ';' conditional_expression ')'
'{' sequence_of_statements '}' ;
<<PrettyPrinter>>:
{ V(H('for','(',assignment[1],';','assignment[2],';',conditional_expression,')'),
H('{', I(sequence_of_statements)),
'}');
This will parse the following:
for ( i=x*2;
i--; i>-2*x ) { a[x]+=3;
b[x]=a[x]-1; }
(using additional grammar rules for statements and expressions) and prettyprint it (using additional prettyprinting rules for those additional grammar rules) as follows:
for (i=x*2;i--;i>-2*x)
{ a[x]+=3;
b[x]=a[x]-1;
}
DMS also captures comments, attaches them to AST nodes, and regenerates them on output. The implementation is a bit exotic because most parsers don't handle comments, but utilization is easy, even "free"; comments will be automatically inserted in the prettyprinted result in their original places.
DMS can also print in "fidelity" mode. In this form, it tries to preserve the shape of the toke (e.g., number radix, identifier character capitalization, which keyword spelling was used) the column offset (into the line) of a parsed token. This would cause the original text (or something so close that you don't think it is different) to get regenerated.
More details about what prettyprinters must do are provided in my SO answer on Compiling an AST back to source code. DMS addresses all of those topics cleanly.
This capability has been used by DMS on some 40+ real languages, including full IBM COBOL, PL/SQL, Java 1.8, C# 5.0, C (many dialects) and C++14.
By writing a sufficiently interesting set of prettyprinter rules, you can build things like JavaDoc extended to include hyperlinked source code.
It is not possible in general.
What makes a print pretty? A print is pretty, if spaces, tabs or newlines are at those positions, which make the print looking nicely.
But most grammars ignore white spaces, because in most languages white spaces are not significant. There are exceptions like Python but in general the question, whether it is a good idea to use white spaces as syntax, is still controversial. And therefor most grammars do not use white spaces as syntax.
And if the abstract syntax tree does not contain white spaces, because the parser has thrown them away, no generator can use them to pretty print an AST.
When you look at the EBNF description of a language, you often see a definition for integers and real numbers:
integer ::= digit digit* // Accepts numbers with a 0 prefix
real ::= integer "." integer (('e'|'E') integer)?
(Definitions were made on the fly, I have probably made a mistake in them).
Although they appear in the context-free grammar, numbers are often recognized in the lexical analysis phase. Are they included in the language definition to make it more complete and it is up to the implementer to realize that they should actually be in the scanner?
Many common parser generator tools -- such as ANTLR, Lex/YACC -- separate parsing into two phases: first, the input string is tokenized. Second, the tokens are combined into productions to create a concrete syntax tree.
However, there are alternative techniques that do not require tokenization: check out backtracking recursive-descent parsers. For such a parser, tokens are defined in a similar way to non-tokens. pyparsing is a parser generator for such parsers.
The advantage of the two-step technique is that it usually produces more efficient parsers -- with tokens, there's a lot less string manipulation, string searching, and backtracking.
According to "The Definitive ANTLR Reference" (Terence Parr),
The only difference between [lexers and parsers] is that the parser recognizes grammatical structure in a stream of tokens while the lexer recognizes structure in a stream of characters.
The grammar syntax needs to be complete to be precise, so of course it includes details as to the precise format of identifiers and the spelling of operators.
Yes, the compiler engineer decides but generally it is pretty obvious. You want the lexer to handle all the character-level detail efficiently.
There's a longer answer at Is it a Lexer's Job to Parse Numbers and Strings?
I have implemented combinatorial GLR parsers. Among them there are:
char(·) parser which consumes specified character or range of characters.
many(·) combinator which repeats specified parser from zero to infinite times.
Example: "char('a').many()" will match a string with any number of "a"-s.
But many(·) combinator is greedy, so, for example, char('{') >> char('{') >> char('a'..'z').many() >> char('}') >> char('}') (where ">>" is sequential chaining of parsers) will successfully consume the whole "{{foo}}some{{bar}}" string.
I want to implement the lazy version of many(·) which, being used in previous example, will consume "{{foo}}" only. How can I do that?
Edit:
May be I confused ya all. In my program a parser is a function (or "functor" in terms of C++) which accepts a "step" and returns forest of "steps". A "step" may be of OK type (that means that parser has consumed part of input successfully) and FAIL type (that means the parser has encountered error). There are more types of steps but they are auxiliary.
Parser = f(Step) -> Collection of TreeNodes of Steps.
So when I parse input, I:
Compose simple predefined Parser functions to get complex Parser function representing required grammar.
Form initial Step from the input.
Give the initial Step to the complex Parser function.
Filter TreeNodes with Steps, leaving only OK ones (or with minimum FAIL-s if there were errors in input).
Gather information from Steps which were left.
I have implemented and have been using GLR parsers for 15 years as language front ends for a program transformation system.
I don't know what a "combinatorial GLR parser" is, and I'm unfamiliar with your notation so I'm not quite sure how to interpret it. I assume this is some kind of curried function notation? I'm imagining your combinator rules are equivalent to definining a grammer in terms of terminal characters, where "char('a').many" corresponds to grammar rules:
char = "a" ;
char = char "a" ;
GLR parsers, indeed, produce all possible parses. The key insight to GLR parsing is its psuedo-parallel processing of all possible parses. If your "combinators" can propose multiple parses (that is, they produce grammar rules sort of equivalent to the above), and you indeed have them connected to a GLR parser, they will all get tried, and only those sequences of productions that tile the text will survive (meaning all valid parsess, e.g., ambiguous parses) will survive.
If you have indeed implemented a GLR parser, this collection of all possible parses should have been extremely clear to you. The fact that it is not hints what you have implemented is not a GLR parser.
Error recovery with a GLR parser is possible, just as with any other parsing technology. What we do is keep the set of live parses before the point of the error; when an error is found, we try (in psuedo-parallel, the GLR parsing machinery makes this easy if it it bent properly) all the following: a) deleting the offending token, b) inserting all tokens that essentially are FOLLOW(x) where x is live parse. In essence, delete the token, or insert one expected by a live parse. We then turn the GLR parser loose again. Only the valid parses (e.g., repairs) will survive. If the current token cannot be processed, the parser processing the stream with the token deleted survives. In the worst case, the GLR parser error recovery ends up throwing away all tokens to EOF. A serious downside to this is the GLR parser's running time grows pretty radically while parsing errors; if there are many in one place, the error recovery time can go through the roof.
Won't a GLR parser produce all possible parses of the input? Then resolving the ambiguity is a matter of picking the parse you prefer. To do that, I suppose the elements of the parse forest need to be labeled according to what kind of combinator produced them, eager or lazy. (You can't resolve the ambiguity incrementally before you've seen all the input, in general.)
(This answer based on my dim memory and vague possible misunderstanding of GLR parsing. Hopefully someone expert will come by.)
Consider the regular expression <.*?> and the input <a>bc<d>ef. This should find <a>, and no other matches, right?
Now consider the regular expression <.*?>e with the same input. This should find <a>bc<d>e, right?
This poses a dilemma. For the user's sake, we want the behavior of the combinator >> to be understood in terms of its two operands. Yet there is no way to produce the second parser's behavior in terms of what the first one finds.
One answer is for each parser to produce a sequence of all parses, ordered by preference, rather than the unordered set of all parsers. Greedy matching would return matches sorted longest to shortest; non-greedy, shortest to longest.
Non-greedy functionality is nothing more than a disambiguation mechanism. If you truly have a generalized parser (which does not require disambiguation to produce its results), then "non-greedy" is meaningless; the same results will be returned whether or not an operator is "non-greedy".
Non-greedy disambiguation behavior could be applied to the complete set of results provided by a generalized parser. Working left-to-right, filter the ambiguous sub-groups corresponding to a non-greedy operator to use the shortest match which still led to a successful parse of the remaining input.
So I'm doing a Parser, where I favor flexibility over speed, and I want it to be easy to write grammars for, e.g. no tricky workaround rules (fake rules to solve conflicts etc, like you have to do in yacc/bison etc.)
There's a hand-coded Lexer with a fixed set of tokens (e.g. PLUS, DECIMAL, STRING_LIT, NAME, and so on) right now there are three types of rules:
TokenRule: matches a particular token
SequenceRule: matches an ordered list of rules
GroupRule: matches any rule from a list
For example, let's say we have the TokenRule 'varAccess', which matches token NAME (roughly /[A-Za-z][A-Za-z0-9_]*/), and the SequenceRule 'assignment', which matches [expression, TokenRule(PLUS), expression].
Expression is a GroupRule matching either 'assignment' or 'varAccess' (the actual ruleset I'm testing with is a bit more complete, but that'll do for the example)
But now let's say I want to parse
var1 = var2
And let's say the Parser begins with rule Expression (the order in which they are defined shouldn't matter - priorities will be solved later). And let's say the GroupRule expression will first try 'assignment'. Then since 'expression' is the first rule to be matched in 'assignment', it will try to parse an expression again, and so on until the stack is filled up and the computer - as expected - simply gives up in a sparkly segfault.
So what I did is - SequenceRules add themselves as 'leafs' to their first rule, and become non-roôt rules. Root rules are rules that the parser will first try. When one of those is applied and matches, it tries to subapply each of its leafs, one by one, until one matches. Then it tries the leafs of the matching leaf, and so on, until nothing matches anymore.
So that it can parse expressions like
var1 = var2 = var3 = var4
Just right =) Now the interesting stuff. This code:
var1 = (var2 + var3)
Won't parse. What happens is, var1 get parsed (varAccess), assign is sub-applied, it looks for an expression, tries 'parenthesis', begins, looks for an expression after the '(', finds var2, and then chokes on the '+' because it was expecting a ')'.
Why doesn't it match the 'var2 + var3' ? (and yes, there's an 'add' SequenceRule, before you ask). Because 'add' isn't a root rule (to avoid infinite recursion with the parse-expresssion-beginning-with-expression-etc.) and that leafs aren't tested in SequenceRules otherwise it would parse things like
reader readLine() println()
as
reader (readLine() println())
(e.g. '1 = 3' is the expression expected by add, the leaf of varAccess a)
whereas we'd like it to be left-associative, e.g. parsing as
(reader readLine()) println()
So anyway, now we've got this problem that we should be able to parse expression such as '1 + 2' within SequenceRules. What to do? Add a special case that when SequenceRules begin with a TokenRule, then the GroupRules it contains are tested for leafs? Would that even make sense outside that particular example? Or should one be able to specify in each element of a SequenceRule if it should be tested for leafs or not? Tell me what you think (other than throw away the whole system - that'll probably happen in a few months anyway)
P.S: Please, pretty please, don't answer something like "go read this 400pages book or you don't even deserve our time" If you feel the need to - just refrain yourself and go bash on reddit. Okay? Thanks in advance.
LL(k) parsers (top down recursive, whether automated or written by hand) require refactoring of your grammar to avoid left recursion, and often require special specifications of lookahead (e.g. ANTLR) to be able to handle k-token lookahead. Since grammars are complex, you get to discover k by experimenting, which is exactly the thing you wish to avoid.
YACC/LALR(1) grammars aviod the problem of left recursion, which is a big step forward. The bad news is that there are no real programming langauges (other than Wirth's original PASCAL) that are LALR(1). Therefore you get to hack your grammar to change it from LR(k) to LALR(1), again forcing you to suffer the experiments that expose the strange cases, and hacking the grammar reduction logic to try to handle K-lookaheads when the parser generators (YACC, BISON, ... you name it) produce 1-lookahead parsers.
GLR parsers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GLR_parser) allow you to avoid almost all of this nonsense. If you can write a context free parser, under most practical circumstances, a GLR parser will parse it without further effort. That's an enormous relief when you try to write arbitrary grammars. And a really good GLR parser will directly produce a tree.
BISON has been enhanced to do GLR parsing, sort of. You still have to write complicated logic to produce your desired AST, and you have to worry about how to handle failed parsers and cleaning up/deleting their corresponding (failed) trees. The DMS Software Reengineering Tookit provides standard GLR parsers for any context free grammar, and automatically builds ASTs without any additional effort on your part; ambiguous trees are automatically constructed and can be cleaned up by post-parsing semantic analyis. We've used this to do define 30+ language grammars including C, including C++ (which is widely thought to be hard to parse [and it is almost impossible to parse with YACC] but is straightforward with real GLR); see C+++ front end parser and AST builder based on DMS.
Bottom line: if you want to write grammar rules in a straightforward way, and get a parser to process them, use GLR parsing technology. Bison almost works. DMs really works.
My favourite parsing technique is to create recursive-descent (RD) parser from a PEG grammar specification. They are usually very fast, simple, and flexible. One nice advantage is you don't have to worry about separate tokenization passes, and worrying about squeezing the grammar into some LALR form is non-existent. Some PEG libraries are listed [here][1].
Sorry, I know this falls into throw away the system, but you are barely out of the gate with your problem and switching to a PEG RD parser, would just eliminate your headaches now.