I'm a bit clueless as to how I can parse (more or less) "free form" parameter lists, suppose the syntax allows for
PARM=(VAL1, 'VAL2', VAL3, KEY4=VAL4, KEY5=VAL5(XYZ), PARM=ABC, SOMETHING=ELSE)
I have managed to basically parse combos of positional and key/value parameters, but as soon as I hit a lexer token like PARM= the parser bails out with a "mismatched input", and I can't specifically allow for or expect anything because these parameters passed to a function are completely arbitrary.
So I'd think I'll need to switch to a specific lexer mode but right now I can't see how I would properly switch back to "normal" mode, the delimiters are PARM=( on the left and the closing ) on the right, but as the "data" itself can contain (pairs of) brackets how would I identify the correct closing paren so I don't prematurely end the lexer mode?
TIA - Alex
Edit 1:
Minimal grammar showing the issue with keywords being used where they shouldn't, as this is part of a complex grammar I can't change the order of tokens to put ID in front of everything else, for example, as it would catch too much. So I don't see how this can work short of breaking out into a different lexer mode.
lexer grammar ParmLexer;
SPACE : [ \t\r\n]+ -> channel(HIDDEN) ;
COMMA : ',' ;
EQUALS : '=' ;
LPAREN : '(' ;
RPAREN : ')' ;
PARM : 'PARM=' ;
ID : ID_LITERAL ;
fragment ID_LITERAL : [A-Za-z]+ ;
.
parser grammar ParmParser;
options { tokenVocab=ParmLexer; }
parms : PARM LPAREN parm+ RPAREN ;
parm : (pkey=ID EQUALS)? pval=ID COMMA? ;
Input:
PARM=( TEST, KEY=VAL, PARM=X)
Results in
line 1:22 extraneous input 'PARM=' expecting {')', ID}
So I'd think I'll need to switch to a specific lexer mode but right now I can't see how I would properly switch back to "normal" mode
Instead of switching to modes (with -> mode(...)), you can push your "special" mode on a stack (with -> pushMode(...)) and then when encountering a ) you pop a mode from the stack. That way, you can have multiple nested lists (..(..(..).)..). A quick demo:
lexer grammar ParmLexer;
SPACE : [ \t\r\n]+ -> channel(HIDDEN);
EQUALS : '=' ;
LPAREN : '(' -> pushMode(InList);
PARM : 'PARM';
ID : [A-Za-z] [A-Za-z0-9]*;
mode InList;
LST_LPAREN : '(' -> type(LPAREN), pushMode(InList);
RPAREN : ')' -> popMode;
COMMA : ',';
LST_EQUALS : '=' -> type(EQUALS);
STRING : '\'' ~['\r\n]* '\'';
LST_ID : [A-Za-z] [A-Za-z0-9]* -> type(ID);
LST_SPACE : [ \t\r\n]+ -> channel(HIDDEN);
and:
parser grammar ParmParser;
options { tokenVocab=ParmLexer; }
parse
: PARM EQUALS list EOF
;
list
: LPAREN ( value ( COMMA value )* )? RPAREN
;
value
: ID
| STRING
| key_value
| ID list
;
key_value
: ID EQUALS value
;
which will parse your example input PARM=(VAL1, 'VAL2', VAL3, KEY4=VAL4, KEY5=VAL5(XYZ), PARM=ABC, SOMETHING=ELSE) like this:
You don't have a rule (alternative) that recognizes a PARM token in your parm rule.
Bart has provided an answer using Lexer modes (and assuming that LPAREN and RPAREN always control those modes), but you can also just set up a parser rule that matches all of your keywords:
lexer grammar ParmLexer
;
SPACE: [ \t\r\n]+ -> channel(HIDDEN);
COMMA: ',';
EQUALS: '=';
LPAREN: '(';
RPAREN: ')';
PARM: 'PARM';
KW1: 'KW1';
KW2: 'KW2';
ID: ID_LITERAL;
fragment ID_LITERAL: [A-Za-z]+;
parser grammar ParmParser
;
options {
tokenVocab = ParmLexer;
}
parms: PARM EQUALS LPAREN parm (COMMA parm)* RPAREN;
parm: ((pkey = ID | kwid = kw) EQUALS)? pval = ID;
kw: PARM | KW1 | KW2;
input
"PARM=( TEST, KEY=VAL, KW2=v2, PARM=X)"
yields:
(parms PARM = ( (parm TEST) , (parm KEY = VAL) , (parm (kw KW2) = v) , (parm (kw PARM) = X) ))
Related
I have this grammar:
grammar BajaPower;
// Gramaticas
programa:PROGRAM ID ';' vars* bloque ;
vars:VAR ((ID|ID',')+ ':' tipo ';')+;
tipo:(INT|FLOAT);
bloque:'{' estatuto+ '}';
estatuto: (asignacion|condicion|escritura);
asignacion: ID '=' expresion ';';
condicion: 'if' '(' expresion ')' bloque (';'|'else' bloque ';');
escritura: 'print' '(' (expresion|STRING ',')* (expresion|STRING) ')' ';';
expresion: exp ('>'|'<'|'<>') exp;
exp: (termino ('+'|'-')*|termino);
termino: (factor ('*'|'/')*|factor);
factor: ('(' expresion ')')|('+'|'-') varcte| varcte;
varcte: (ID|CteI|CteF);
// Tokens
WS: [\t\r\n]+ -> skip;
PROGRAM:'program';
ID:([a-zA-Z]['_'(a-zA-Z0-9)+]*);
VAR:'var';
INT:'int';
FLOAT:'float';
CteI: ([1-9][0-9]*|'0');
CteF: [+-]?([0-9]*[.])?[0-9]+;
STRING:'"' [a-zA-Z0-9]+ '"';
And I'm trying to test it with the following code:
program TestCorrect;
var
x,y:int;
z:float;
{
x = 1;
y = 2;
z = (x+y*3)/4;
if (z > x) {
print("hola mundo",(x+y));
}
}
When I run it it only detects program as an ID and not the PROGRAM token.
There are quite a few things going wrong. In future, I suggest you incrementally create your grammar instead of (trying) to write the entire thing in one go and then coming to the conclusion it doesn't do what you meant it to.
Let's start with the lexer:
WS: [\t\r\n]+ -> skip does not include spaces
ID: ['_'(a-zA-Z0-9)+]* should be ('_'[a-zA-Z0-9]+)*
ID: the first part, [a-zA-Z], should probably be [a-zA-Z]+
VAR, INT, FLOAT are placed after ID, so when ID is properly defined, it will match var, int and float before these tokens
CteF: don't include [+-]?, leave that for the parser to deal with
STRING: [a-zA-Z0-9]+ doe not include spaces, so "hola mundo" will not be matched
Now the parser:
vars: (ID|ID',')+ is wrong because it now always has to end with a comma if you want to match multiple ID's. Do ID (',' ID)* instead
condicion: (';'|'else' bloque ';') mandates a semi-colon should always be present after an if or else block, but in your input, you do not have a semi-colon. Do ('else' bloque)? instead
expresion: exp ('>'|'<'|'<>') exp means an expresion always contains one of the operators >, < or <>, which is not correct (an expression can also just be 1*2). Do exp (('>'|'<'|'<>') exp)? instead
exp: termino ('+'|'-')* is odd: that will match 1++++++++++++. Do termino (('+'|'-') termino)* instead
termino: factor ('*'|'/')* should be factor (('*'|'/') factor)* (same as exp)
varcte: should probably include STRING so that you do not have to do this on multiple places: (expresion|STRING) but can then just do expresion
All in all, this should do the trick:
grammar BajaPower;
programa
: PROGRAM ID ';' vars* bloque
;
vars
: VAR (ID (',' ID)* ':' tipo ';')+
;
tipo
: INT
| FLOAT
;
bloque
:'{' estatuto+ '}'
;
estatuto
: asignacion
| condicion
| escritura
;
asignacion
: ID '=' expresion ';'
;
condicion
: 'if' '(' expresion ')' bloque ('else' bloque)?
;
escritura
: 'print' '(' (expresion ',')* expresion ')' ';'
;
expresion
: exp (('>'|'<'|'<>') exp)?
;
exp
: termino (('+'|'-') termino)*
;
termino
: factor (('*'|'/') factor)*
;
factor
: '(' expresion ')'
| ('+'|'-')? varcte
| STRING
;
varcte
: ID
| CteI
| CteF
;
WS : [ \t\r\n]+ -> skip;
PROGRAM : 'program';
VAR : 'var';
INT : 'int';
FLOAT : 'float';
CteI : [1-9][0-9]* | '0';
CteF : [0-9]* '.' [0-9]+;
ID : [a-zA-Z]+ ('_' [a-zA-Z0-9]+)*;
STRING : '"' .*? '"';
My lexer (target language C++) contains a simple rule for parsing a string literal:
STRING: '"' ~'"'+ '"';
But based on the value returned by a function, I want my lexer to return either a STRING or an IDENT.
I've tried the following:
STRING_START: '"' -> mode(current_string_mode());
or
STRING_START: '"' -> mode(current_string_mode() == IDENT ? MODE_IDENT : MODE_STRING) ;
In either case, I get an error when trying to generate the lexer (error message says:'"' came as a complete surprise)
Alas, that is not possible.
If I look at the grammar of ANTLR itself, I see this:
lexerCommands
: RARROW lexerCommand (COMMA lexerCommand)*
;
lexerCommand
: lexerCommandName LPAREN lexerCommandExpr RPAREN
| lexerCommandName
;
lexerCommandName
: identifier
| MODE
;
lexerCommandExpr
: identifier
| INT
;
In short: the part between parenthesis (mode(...) or pushMode(...)) must be an identifier, or an integer literal. It cannot be an expression (what you're trying to do).
grammar TestGrammar;
AND : 'AND' ;
OR : 'OR'|',' ;
NOT : 'NOT' ;
LPAREN : '(' ;
RPAREN : ')' ;
DQUOTE : '"' ;
WORD : [a-z0-9._#+=]+(' '[a-z0-9._#+=]+)* ;
WS : [ \t\r\n]+ -> skip ;
quotedword : DQUOTE WORD DQUOTE;
expression
: LPAREN expression+ RPAREN
| expression (AND expression)+
| expression (OR expression)+
| expression (NOT expression)+
| NOT expression+
| quotedword
| WORD;
I've managed to implement the above grammar for antlr4.
I've got a long way to go but for now my question is,
how can I make WORD generic? Basically I want this [a-z0-9._#+=] to be anything except the operators (AND, OR, NOT, LPAREN, RPAREN, DQUOTE, SPACE).
The lexer will use the first rule that can match the given input. Only if that rule can't match it, it will try the next one.
Therefore you can make your WORD rule generic by using this grammar:
AND : 'AND' ;
OR : 'OR'|',' ;
NOT : 'NOT' ;
LPAREN : '(' ;
RPAREN : ')' ;
DQUOTE : '"' ;
WS : [ \t\r\n]+ -> skip ;
WORD: .+? ;
Make sure to use the non-greedy operator ? in this case becaue otherwise once invoked the WORD rule will consume all following input.
As WORD is specified last, input will only be tried to be consumed by it if all previous lexer rules (all that have been defined above in the source code) have failed.
EDIT: If you don't want your WORD rule to match any input then you just have to modify the rule I provided. But the essence of my answer is that in the lexer you don't have to worry about two rules potentially matching the same input as long as you got the order in the source code right.
Try something like this grammar:
grammar TestGrammar;
...
WORD : Letter+;
QUOTEDWORD : '"' (~["\\\r\n])* '"' // disallow quotes, backslashes and crlf in literals
WS : [ \t\r\n]+ -> skip ;
fragment Letter :
[a-zA-Z$_] // these are the "java letters" below 0x7F
| ~[\u0000-\u007F\uD800-\uDBFF] // covers all characters above 0x7F which are not a surrogate
| [\uD800-\uDBFF] [\uDC00-\uDFFF] // covers UTF-16 surrogate pairs encodings for U+10000 to U+10FFFF
;
expression:
...
| QUOTEDWORD
| WORD+;
Maybe you want to use escape sequences in QUOTEDWORD, then look in this example how to do this.
This grammar allows you:
to have quoted words interpreted as string literals (preserving all spaces within)
to have multiple words separated by whitespace (which is ignored)
I have the following simple grammar:
grammar TestG;
p : pDecl+ ;
pDecl : endianDecl
| dTDecl
;
endianType : E_BIG
| E_LITTLE
;
endianDecl : 'endian' '=' endianType ';' ;
dTDecl : 'dT' '[' STRING ']' '=' ID ';' ;
STRING: '"'.*?'"' ; //Embedded quotes?
COMMENT: '#' .*? [\n\r] -> skip ; // Discard comments for now
ID : [a-zA-Z][a-zA-Z0-9_]* ;
WS : [ \t\n\r]+ -> skip ;
INT : ('0x')?[0-9]+ ; // How to handle 0xDD and ensure non zero?
E_BIG : 'big' ;
E_LITTLE : 'little' ;
When I run grun TestG p and input the following:
endian = little;
I get the following:
line 1:9 mismatched input 'little' expecting {'big', 'little'}
What have I done wrong?
Because your lexer rule for ID precedes that for E_LITTLE, your 'little' input is being lexed as an ID.
[#0,0:5='endian',<'endian'>,1:0]
[#1,7:7='=',<'='>,1:7]
[#2,9:14='little',<ID>,1:9] <== see here it's being lexed as an ID
[#3,15:15=';',<';'>,1:15]
[#4,18:17='<EOF>',<EOF>,2:0]
line 1:9 mismatched input 'little' expecting {'big', 'little'}
Moving the these lexer tokens above ID like so:
STRING: '"'.*?'"' ; //Embedded quotes?
COMMENT: '#' .*? [\n\r] -> skip ; // Discard comments for now
E_BIG : 'big' ;
E_LITTLE : 'little' ;
ID : [a-zA-Z][a-zA-Z0-9_]* ;
WS : [ \t\n\r]+ -> skip ;
INT : ('0x')?[0-9]+ ; // How to handle 0xDD and ensure non zero?
yields the correct output from your test input.
[#0,0:5='endian',<'endian'>,1:0]
[#1,7:7='=',<'='>,1:7]
[#2,9:14='little',<'little'>,1:9] <== see here being lexed correctly
[#3,15:15=';',<';'>,1:15]
[#4,18:17='<EOF>',<EOF>,2:0]
Remember, for lexer tokens, the longest match wins, but in the case of a tie, the one that appears FIRST wins. This is why you want your more specific lexer tokens at the top of the lexer token list, and the more general ones (like identifiers, strings, etc.) farther down.
Goal
I want to reduce (or eliminate) the Java-specific actions and predicates in my parser. Perhaps it isn't possible, but I wanted to ask here just in case there's some ANTLR4 feature I've missed. (The language itself is third-party, so I don't have control over that.)
Simplified example
The predicates I want to use are mostly exact (or perhaps case-insensitive) string-matching. I could make big parallel sets of parser rules, but I'd rather not since the real-life example is considerably more convoluted.
Suppose I'm given something like:
isWidget(int) : "Whether it is a widget" : 4 ;
ownerFirstName(string) : "john" ;
ownerLastName(string) : "This is the last-name of the owner" : "doe" ;
I want the parser to look at the default-value (the last item on the line, like 4, "john" or "doe") and parse it based on the earlier type (int), (string), (string).
main
: stmt SEMIC (stmt SEMIC)* EOF
;
stmt
: propname=IDENTIFIER LPAREN datatype=IDENTIFIER RPAREN (COLON description=QUOTSTRING)? COLON df=defaultVal
;
defaultVal
: QUOTSTRING //TODO only this alt if datatype=string
| NUM //TODO only this alt if datatype=int
;
fragment Letter : 'a'..'z' | 'A'..'Z' ;
fragment Digit : '0'..'9' ;
fragment Underscore : '_' ;
SEMIC : ';' ;
COLON : ':' ;
LPAREN : '(' ;
RPAREN : ')' ;
IDENTIFIER : (Letter|Underscore) (Letter|Underscore|Digit)* ;
QUOTSTRING : '"' ~('"' |'\n' | '\r' | '\u2029' | '\u2028')* '"' ;
NUM : Digit+ ;
WS : [ \t\n\r]+ -> skip ;
I know I can do it with predicates and rule inputs, but then I'm crossing the line from a language-agnostic grammar to one with embedded Java code.
Your parser should handle things like the following without a problem:
isWidget(int) : "Whether it is a widget" : "foo" ;
In other words, do not add a predicate that would fail in this case, or you will lose the ability to report sane error messages. Instead, use a language-specific listener or visitor implementation after the parse is complete to report a semantic error if the type of the default value does not match the declared type.