I've been playing with this for an hour or tow and have found myself at a road block with the Lua pattern matching utilities. I am attempting to match all quoted text in a string and replace it if needed.
The pattern I have come up with so far is: (\?[\"\'])(.-)%1
This works in some cases but, not all cases:
Working: "This \"is a\" string of \"text to\" test with"
Not Working: "T\\\"his \"is\' a\" string\" of\' text\" to \"test\" wit\\\"h"
In the not working example I would like it to match to (I made a function that gets the matches I desire, I'm just looking for a pattern to use with gsub and curious if a lua pattern can do this):
string
a" string" of
is' a" string" of' text
test
his "is' a" string" of' text" to "test" wit
I'm going to continue to use my function instead for the time being, but am curious if there is a pattern I could/should be using and i'm just missing something with patterns.
(a few edits b/c I forgot about stackoverflows formating)
(another edit to make a non-html example since it was leading to assumptions that I was attempting to parse html)
Trying to match escaped, quoted text using regular expressions is like trying to remove the daisies (and only the daises) from a field using a lawnmower.
I made a function that gets the matches I desire
This is the correct move.
I'm curious if a lua pattern can do this
From a practical point of view, even if a pattern can do this, you don't want to. From a theoretical point of view, you are trying to find a double quote that is preceded by an even number of backslashes. This is definitely a regular language, and the regular expression you want would be something like the following (Lua quoting conventions)
[[[^\](\\)*"(.-[^\](\\)*)"]]
And the quoted string would be result #2. But Lua patterns are not full regular expressions; in particular, you cannot put a * after a parenthesized pattern.
So my guess is that this problem cannot be solved using Lua patterns, but since Lua patterns are not a standard thing in automata theory, I'm not aware of any body of proof technique that you could use to prove it.
The issue with escaped quotes is that, in general, if there's an odd number of backslashes before the quote, then it's escaped, and if there's an even number, it's not. I do not believe that Lua pattern-matching is powerful enough to represent this condition, so if you need to parse text like this, then you should seek another way. Perhaps you can iterate through the string and parse it, or you could find each quote in turn and read backwards, counting the backslashes until you find a non-backslash character (or the beginning of the string).
If you absolutely must use patterns for some reason, you could try doing this in a multi-step process. First, gsub for all occurrences of two backslashes in a row, and replace them with some sentinel value. This must be a value that does not already occur in the string. You could try something like "\001" if you know this string doesn't contain non-printable characters. Anyway, once you've replaced all sequences of two backslashes in a row, any backslashes left are escaping the following character. Now you can apply your original pattern, and then finally you can replace all instances of your sentinel value with two backslashes again.
Lua's pattern language is adequate for many simple cases. And it has at least one trick you don't find in a typical regular expression package: a way to match balanced parenthesis. But it has its limits as well.
When those limits are exceeded, then I reach for LPeg. LPeg is an implementation of a Parsing Expression Grammer for Lua, and was implemented by one of Lua's original authors so the adaptation to Lua is done quite well. A PEG allows specification of anything from simple patterns through complete language grammars to be written. LPeg compiles the grammar to a bytecode and executes it extremely efficiently.
you should NOT be trying to parse HTML with regular expressions, HTML and XML are NOT regular languages and can not be successfully manipulated with regular expressions. You should use a dedicated HTML parser. Here are lots of explanations why.
Related
Let's say I have the following statement:
SELECT "hi\n
there";
Notice there is a literal newline in there, and the escape \n. The string that antlr4 picks up for me is:
String_Literal: "hi\n\nthere"
In other words, not differentiating between the literal newline and the \n one. Is there a way to differentiate the two, or what's the usual process to do that?
My guess is that the output you pasted into your question comes from a call to the Antlr4 runtime method tree.toStringTree(parser) (or equivalent in whatever target language you've chosen).
That function calls escapeWhitespace in the utilities class/module/file, and that function does what it's name suggests: it converts (some) whitespace characters to C-like backslash escape sequences. (Specifically, it handles newline, carriage return, and tab characters.) It does not escape backslash characters, which makes its output ambiguous; there's no way to distinguish between the two character escape sequence \n and the escaped conversion of a newline character in the message.
They are different in the actual character string, because the Antlr4 lexer does not transform the string value of the matched token in any way. That's your responsibility.
In computing, it is very often the case that what you see is not what you got. What you see is just what you see, and a lot of computational power has gone into creating that vision for you. By the same token, nothing guarantees that the vision is an unambiguous, or even useful, representation of the actual values. The best you can say for it is that it's probably more useful than trying to read the data as individual bits. (And, indeed, the individual bits are not physical objects either; despite the common refrain, you could completely disassemble a computer and examine it with an arbitrarily powerful microscope, and you will not see a single 1 or 0.)
That might seem like irrelevant philosophizing, but it has a real consequence: when you're debugging and you see something that makes you think, "that looks wrong", you need to consider two possibilities: maybe the underlying data is incorrect, but may it's the process which rendered the representation which is at fault. In this case, I'd say that the failure of escapeWhitespace to convert backslash characters into pairs of backslashes is a bug, but that's a value judgement on my part. Anyway, the function is not critical to the operation of Antlr4, and you could easily replace it.
I'm having a hard time figuring out how to recognize some text only if it is preceded and followed by certain things. The task is to recognize AND, OR, and NOT, but not if they're part of a word:
They should be recognized here:
x AND y
(x)AND(y)
NOT x
NOT(x)
but not here:
xANDy
abcNOTdef
AND gets recognized if it is surrounded by spaces or parentheses. NOT gets recognized if it is at the beginning of the input, preceded by a space, and followed by a space or parenthesis.
The trouble is that if I include parentheses as part of the definition of AND or NOT, they get consumed, and I need them to be separate tokens.
Is there some kind of lookahead/lookbehind syntax I can use?
EDIT:
Per the comments, here's some context. The problem is related to this problem: Antlr: how to match everything between the other recognized tokens? My working solution there is just to recognize AND, OR, etc. and skip everything else. Then, in a second pass over the text, I manually grab the characters not otherwise covered, and run a totally different tokenizer on it. The reason is that I need a custom, human-language-specific tokenizer for this content, which means that I can't, in advance, describe what is an ID. Each human language is different. I want to combine, in stages, a single query-language tokenizer, and then apply a human-language tokenizer to what's left.
ANTLR is not the right tool for this task. A normal parser is designed for a specific language, that is, a set of sentences consisting of elements that are known at parser creation time. There are ways to make this more flexible, e.g. by using a runtime function in a predicate to recognize words not defined in the grammar, but this has other (negative) implications.
What you should consider is NLP for a different approach to process natural language. It's more than just skipping things between two known tokens.
I am making something like formula validator and I am using ParseKit framework to accomplish that. My approach is to create proper grammar and when didMatchFormula callback method is called on sample string I assume formula has been found and therefore it is valid.
There is one difficulty however - formula is detected from sample string even if it contains also other characters following formula part. I would need something like greedy mode for matching - an entire string would be matched against formula grammar so that didMatchFormula would be called only if string contains formula and no other characters.
Can you give me some hints how to accomplish that with PaseKit or in other way.
I cannot use regular expressions since my formulas would use recursion and regexp is not a good tool for handling that.
Developer of ParseKit here.
Probably the simplest and most elegant way to do this with ParseKit (or any parsing toolkit) is to design your formula language have a terminator char after every statement. This would be the same concept as ; terminating statements in most C-like programming languages.
Here's an example toy formula language which uses . as the statement terminator:
#start = lang;
lang = statment+;
statment = Word+ terminator;
terminator = '.';
Notice how I have designed the language so that your "greedy" requirement is an inherent feature of the language. Think about it – if the input string ends with any junk content which is not a valid statement ending in a ., my lang production will not find a match and the parse will fail.
With this type of design, you won't need any "greedy" features in the parsking toolkit you use. Rather, your requirement will be naturally met by your language design.
I have an app that (among other things) supports plain-text searches and searches using Lua patterns. As a convenience, the app supports case-insensitive searches. Here is an image snippet:
The code that transforms the given Lua pattern into a case-insensitive Lua pattern isn't too pretty. It basically worries about whether or not a character is preceded by an odd or even number of escapes (%) and whether or not it is located inside of square brackets. The pattern shown in the image becomes %a[bB][bB]%%[cC][%abB%%cC]
I haven't had a chance to learn LPeg yet, and I suppose this could be my motivator.
My question is whether this is something that LPeg could have handled easily?
Yes, but for an easier entry into the LPeg world, consider LPeg's "re" module, which gives you a regex-like syntax and which you can specify a set of rules, as in a grammar (think Yacc, etc.). You'd basically write rules for escaped characters, bracket groups and regular characters. Then, you could associate functions to the rules, that would emit either the same text they consumed as the input or the case-insensitive modified version.
The structure of your rules would take care of the even-odd distinction automatically, bracket context, etc. LPeg uses "ordered choice", so if you add your escape rule first, it will handle %[ correctly and avoid mixing it up with the brackets rule, for example.
In designing of a (mini)language:
When there are certain characters that should be escaped to lose special meanings (like quotes in some programming languages), what should be done, especially from a security perspective, when characters that are not escapable (e.g. normal characters which never have special meaning) are escaped? Should an error be "error"ed, or should the character be discarded, or should it be in the output the same as if it was not escaped?
Example:
In a simple language where strings are delimited by double-quotes("), and any quotes in a given string are escaped with a back-slash(\): for input "We \said, \"We want Moshiach Now\"" -- what would should be done with the letter s in said which is escaped?
I prefer the lexer to whine when this occurs. A lexer/parser should be tight about syntax; one can always loosen it up later. If you are sloppy, you'll find you can't retract a decision you didn't think you made.
Assume that you initially decide to treat " backslash not-an-escape " as that pair of characters, and the "T" is
not-an-escape today. Sometime later you decide to extend the language, and want "\T" to mean something special, and you change your language.
You'll find an angry mob of programmers storming your design castle,
because for them, "\T" means "\" "T" (or "T" depending on your default decision),
and you just broke their code. You hang your head in shame, retract the decision,
and then realize... oops, there are no more available escape characters!
This lesson goes for any piece of syntax that isn't well defined in your language. If it isn't explicitly legal, it should be implicitly illegal and your compiler should check it. Or you'll never be able to extend your successful language.
If your language isn't going to be successful, you may not care as much.
Well, one way to solve the problem is for the backslash to just mean backslash when it precedes a non-escapable character. That's what Python does:
>>> print "a\tb"
a b
>>> print "a\tb\Rc"
a b\Rc
Obviously, most systems take the escape character to mean "take the next character verbatim", so escaping a "non-escapable" character is usually harmless. The problem later happens when you get to comparisons and such, where the literal text does not represent the actual value (that's where you see a lot of issues securitywise, especially with things like URLs).
So on the one hand, you can only accept a limited number of escaped characters. In that sense, you have an "escape sequence", rather than an escaped character (the \x is the entire sequence rather than a \ followed by an x). That's like the most safe mechanism, and it's not really burdensome to write.
The other option is to ensure that you you "canonicalizing" everything you compare, through some ruleset. This typically means removing all of the escape sequences properly up front, before comparison and comparing only the final values rather than the literals.
Most systems interpret the slash as Will Hartung says, except for alphanumerics which are variously used as aliases for control codes, character classes, word boundaries, the start of hex sequences, case region markers, hex or octal digits, etc. \s in particular often means white-space in perl5 style regexs. JavaScript, which interprets it as 's' in one context and as whitespace in another suffers from subtle bugs because of this choice. Consider /foo\sbar/ vs new RegExp('foo\sbar').