antlr does not parse when token only mentions one other token - antlr4

I am trying to learn EBNF grammars with ANTLR. So I thought I would convert the Wikipedia EBNF grammar to ANTLR 4 and play with it. However I have had a terrible time at it. I was able to reduce the grammar to the one step that generates the problem.
It seems if I have one token reference solely another token then ANTLR 4 can't parse the input.
Here is my grammar:
grammar Hello;
program : statement+ ;
statement : IDENTIFIER STATEMENTEND /*| LETTERS STATEMENTEND */ ;
LETTERS : [a-z]+ ;
IDENTIFIER : LETTERS ;
SEMICOLON : [;] ;
STATEMENTEND : SEMICOLON NEWLINE* | NEWLINE+ ;
fragment NEWLINE : '\r' '\n' | '\n' | '\r';
Notice IDENTIFIER refers only to LETTERS.
If I provide this input:
a;
Then I get this error:
line 1:0 mismatched input 'a' expecting IDENTIFIER
(program a ;\n)
However if I uncomment the code and provide the same input I get legit output:
(program (statement a ;\n))
I do not understand why one works and the other does not.

The token a will only be assigned one token type. Since this input text matches both the LETTERS and IDENTIFIER rules, ANTLR 4 will assign the type according to the first rule appearing in the lexer, which means the input a will be a token of type LETTERS.
If you only meant for LETTERS to be a sub-part of other lexer rules, and not form LETTERS tokens themselves, you can declare it as a fragment rule.
fragment LETTERS : [a-z]+;
IDENTIFIER : LETTERS;
In this case, a would be assigned the token type IDENTIFIER and the original parser rule would work.

Related

The word "detector" is not recognized as a token in ANTLR4

I defined a grammar rule
variable : ID ;
where ID is defined in the lexer grammar as
ID : VALID_ID_START VALID_ID_CHAR* ;
fragment VALID_ID_START : ('a' .. 'z') | ('A' .. 'Z') | '_' ;
fragment VALID_ID_CHAR : VALID_ID_START | ('0' .. '9') ;
However in my test, the literal word "detector" is not recognized as a token of variable. It works as expected as soon as I remove any character from the word. Is "detector" a reserved word in ANTLR4? If yes, how can I get around that since this word is a common variable in my work.
I found the cause of the problem. Somewhere in my lexer rules, the word "detector" is used to define a different token. Thanks to #sepp2k for his comments that guided me to right direction of solving the problem.

Antlr4 grammar wouldn't parse multiline input

I want to write a grammar using Antlr4 that will parse a some definition but I've been struggling to get Antlr to co-operate.
The definition has two kinds of lines, a type and a property. I can get my grammar to parse the type line correctly but it either ignores the property lines or fails to identify PROPERTY_TYPE depending on how I tweak my grammar.
Here is my grammar (attempt # 583):
grammar TypeDefGrammar;
start
: statement+ ;
statement
: type NEWLINE
| property NEWLINE
| NEWLINE ;
type
: TYPE_KEYWORD TYPE_NAME; // e.g. 'type MyType1'
property
: PROPERTY_NAME ':' PROPERTY_TYPE ; // e.g. 'someProperty1: int'
TYPE_KEYWORD
: 'type' ;
TYPE_NAME
: IDENTIFIER ;
PROPERTY_NAME
: IDENTIFIER ;
PROPERTY_TYPE
: IDENTIFIER ;
fragment IDENTIFIER
: (LETTER | '_') (LETTER | DIGIT | '_' )* ;
fragment LETTER
: [a-zA-Z] ;
fragment DIGIT
: [0-9] ;
NEWLINE
: '\r'? '\n' ;
WS
: [ \t] -> skip ;
Here is a sample input:
type SimpleType
intProp1: int
stringProp2 : String
(returns the type but ignores intProp1, stringProp2.)
What am I doing wrong?
Usually when a rule does not match the whole input, but does match a prefix of it, it will simply match that prefix and leave the rest of the input in the stream without producing an error. If you want your rule to always match the whole input, you can add EOF to the end of the rule. That way you'll get proper error messages when it can't match the entire input.
So let's change your start rule to start : statement+ EOF;. Now applying start to your input will lead to the following error messages:
line 3:0 extraneous input 'intProp1' expecting {, 'type', PROPERTY_NAME, NEWLINE}
line 4:0 extraneous input 'stringProp2' expecting {, 'type', PROPERTY_NAME, NEWLINE}
So apparently intProp1 and stringProp2 aren't recognized as PROPERTY_NAMEs. So let's look at which tokens are generated (you can do that using the -tokens option to grun or by just iterating over the token stream in your code):
[#0,0:3='type',<'type'>,1:0]
[#1,5:14='SimpleType',<TYPE_NAME>,1:5]
[#2,15:15='\n',<NEWLINE>,1:15]
[#3,16:16='\n',<NEWLINE>,2:0]
[#4,17:24='intProp1',<TYPE_NAME>,3:0]
[#5,25:25=':',<':'>,3:8]
[#6,27:29='int',<TYPE_NAME>,3:10]
[#7,30:30='\n',<NEWLINE>,3:13]
[#8,31:41='stringProp2',<TYPE_NAME>,4:0]
[#9,43:43=':',<':'>,4:12]
[#10,45:50='String',<TYPE_NAME>,4:14]
[#11,51:51='\n',<NEWLINE>,4:20]
[#12,52:51='<EOF>',<EOF>,5:0]
So all of the identifiers in the code are recognized as TYPE_NAMEs, not PROPERTY_NAMEs. In fact, it is not clear what should distinguish a TYPE_NAME from a PROPERTY_NAME, so now let's actually look at your grammar:
TYPE_NAME
: IDENTIFIER ;
PROPERTY_NAME
: IDENTIFIER ;
PROPERTY_TYPE
: IDENTIFIER ;
fragment IDENTIFIER
: (LETTER | '_') (LETTER | DIGIT | '_' )* ;
Here you have three lexer rules with exactly the same definition. That's a bad sign.
Whenever multiple lexer rules can match on the current input, ANTLR chooses the one that would produce the longest match, picking the one that comes first in the grammar in case of ties. This is known as the maximum munch rule.
If you have multiple rules with the same definition, that means those rules will always match on the same input and they will always produce matches of the same length. So by the maximum much rule, the first definition (TYPE_NAME) will always be used and the other ones might as well not exist.
The problem basically boils down to the fact that there's nothing that lexically distinguishes the different types of names, so there's no basis on which the lexer could decide which type of name a given identifier represents. That tells us that the names should not be lexer rules. Instead IDENTIFIER should be a lexer rule and the FOO_NAMEs should either be (somewhat unnecessary) parser rules or removed altogether (you can just use IDENTIFIER wherever you're currently using FOO_NAME).

antlr4.7 how to parse a duration spec like "P3M2D" for parts

I am stuck trying to parse an ISO 8601 duation string (e.g. "P3M2D"). Note that this does not allow embedded spaces. I am using antlr4.7.
When I tried using a lexer rule
ISO8601_INTERVAL
: 'P' ( y=NUMBER_INT 'Y' )? ( m=NUMBER_INT 'M' )? ( d=NUMBER_INT 'D' )?
| 'T' etc
;
I get a compile time warning like "labels in lexer rules are not supported in ANTLR 4; actions cannot reference elements of lexical rules but you can use getText() to get the entire text matched for the rule".
I would like to avoid this manual parsing.
When I tried using a parser rule
iso8601_INTERVAL
: 'P' ( y=NUMBER_INT 'Y' )? ( m=NUMBER_INT 'M' )? ( d=NUMBER_INT 'D' )?
| 'T' etc
;
I get an error like "line 8:39 mismatched input 'P2D' expecting {'P'..."
Is it because the lexer is expecting tokens to be separated by WS? If yes, how to temporarily suspend that?
What's the right way to having antlr4 parse out the parts of the duration input? I am rather new to antlr or compilers.
No ANTLR doesn't expect lexer tokens to be separated by whitespace.
From what you provided in your question the following grammar should do the job:
specs:
iso*
;
iso:
P (y=INT Y)? (m=INT M)? (d=INT D)?
;
P: 'P' ;
Y: 'Y' ;
M: 'M' ;
D: 'D' ;
INT: [0-9] ;
As you can see I didn't really change anything in your grammar. That is because I suspect that the error lays somewhere else in your grammar but as you haven't provided the whole grammar, the only thing I can give you is this small but (hopefully) working stand-alone grammar.

Incorrect Result When ANTLR4 Lexer Action Invokes getText()

It seems that the getText() in a lexer action cannot retrieve the token being matched correctly. Is it a normal behaviour? For example, part of my grammar has these rules for
parsing a C++ style identifier that support a \u sequence to embed unicode characters as part of the identifier name:
grammar CPPDefine;
cppCompilationUnit: (id_token|ALL_OTHER_SYMBOL)+ EOF;
id_token:IDENTIFIER //{System.out.println($text);}
;
CRLF: '\r'? '\n' -> skip;
ALL_OTHER_SYMBOL: '\\';
IDENTIFIER: (NONDIGIT (NONDIGIT | DIGIT)*)
{System.out.println(getText());}
;
fragment DIGIT: [0-9];
fragment NONDIGIT: [_a-zA-Z] | UNIVERSAL_CHARACTER_NAME ;
fragment UNIVERSAL_CHARACTER_NAME: ('\\u' HEX_QUAD | '\\U' HEX_QUAD HEX_QUAD ) ;
fragment HEX_QUAD: [0-9A-Fa-f] [0-9A-Fa-f] [0-9A-Fa-f] [0-9A-Fa-f];
Tested with this 1 line input containing an identifier with incorrect unicode escape sequence:
dkk\uzzzz
The $text of the id_token parser rule action produces this correct result:
dkk
uzzzz
i.e. input interpreted as 2 identifiers separated by a symbol '\' (symbol '\' not printed by any parser rule).
However, the getText() of IDENTIFIER lexer rule action produces this incorrect result:
dkk\u
uzzzz
Why the lexer rule IDENTIFIER's getText() is different from the parser id_token rule's $text. Afterall, the parser rule contains only this lexer rule?
EDIT:
Issue observed in ANTLR4.1 but not in ANTLR4.2 so it could have been fixed already.
It's hard to tell based on your example, but my instinct is you are using an old version of ANTLR. I am unable to reproduce this issue in ANTLR 4.2.

string recursion antlr lexer token

How do I build a token in lexer that can handle recursion inside as this string:
${*anything*${*anything*}*anything*}
?
Yes, you can use recursion inside lexer rules.
Take the following example:
${a ${b} ${c ${ddd} c} a}
which will be parsed correctly by the following grammar:
parse
: DollarVar
;
DollarVar
: '${' (DollarVar | EscapeSequence | ~Special)+ '}'
;
fragment
Special
: '\\' | '$' | '{' | '}'
;
fragment
EscapeSequence
: '\\' Special
;
as the interpreter inside ANTLRWorks shows:
alt text http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/5471/recq.png
ANTLR's lexers do support recursion, as #BartK adeptly points out in his post, but you will only see a single token within the parser. If you need to interpret the various pieces within that token, you'll probably want to handle it within the parser.
IMO, you'd be better off doing something in the parser:
variable: DOLLAR LBRACE id variable id RBRACE;
By doing something like the above, you'll see all the necessary pieces and can build an AST or otherwise handle accordingly.

Resources