trying out upgrading antlr4, I have 2 lines in the grammar that produce the error message:
label tok assigned to a block which is not a set
Specifically for a grammar line that looks like this:
contextRadius: tok=('radius' 'change-authorize-nas-ip') (IP4_ADDRESS|IP6_ADDRESS) 'encrypted' 'key' ID 'port' INT_TOK 'event-timestamp-window' INT_TOK 'no-reverse-path-forward-check'
;
What does this imply, exactly - to be a "block which is not set" and is there a general solution?
The improper label is the following:
tok=('radius' 'change-authorize-nas-ip')
In this case, ANTLR doesn't know whether to assign the token 'radius' or the token 'change-authorize-nas-ip' to the label tok. Starting with ANTLR 4, rather than generate code with unclear semantics an error is produced. You'll want to either remove the label tok or move it to the intended item. In other words, use one of the following three forms.
('radius' 'change-authorize-nas-ip')
(tok='radius' 'change-authorize-nas-ip')
('radius' tok='change-authorize-nas-ip')
The reason labels are allowed on blocks in grammars is to support items like the following. This block is a set, meaning the contents can be collapsed to matching exactly one token from a fixed set of allowed tokens. The particular item matched by the set is then assigned to x.
x=('a' | 'b')
Related
I've got a file format that looks a little like this:
blockA {
uniqueName42 -> uniqueName aWord1 anotherWord "Some text"
anotherUniqueName -> uniqueName23 aWord2
blockB {
thing -> anotherThing
}
}
Lots more blocks with arbitrary nesting levels.
The lines with the arrow in them define relationships between two things. Each relationship has some optional metadata (multi-word quoted or single word unquoted).
The challenge I'm having is that because the there can be an arbitrary number of metadata items in a relationship my parser is treating anotherUniqueName as a metadata item from the first relationship rather than the start of the second relationship.
You can see this in the image below. The parser is only recognising one relationshipDeclaration when a second should start with StringLiteral: anotherUniqueName
The parser looks a bit like this:
block
: BLOCK LBRACE relationshipDeclaration* RBRACE
;
relationshipDeclaration
: StringLiteral? ARROW StringLiteral StringLiteral*
;
I'm hoping to avoid lexical modes because the fact that these relationships can appear almost anywhere in the file will leave me up to my eyes in NL+ :-(
Would appreciate any ideas on what options I have. Is there a way to look ahead, spot the '->', for example?
Thanks a million.
Your example certainly looks like the NL is what signals the end of a relationshipDeclaration.
If that's the case, then you'll need NLs to be tokens available to your parse rules so the parser can know recognize the end.
As you've alluded to, you could potentially use -> to trigger a different Lexer Mode and generate different tokens for content between the -> and the NL and then use those tokens in your parse rule for relationshipDeclaration.
If it's as simple as your snippet indicates, then just capturing RD_StringLiteral tokens in that lexical mode, would probably be easier to deal with than handling all the places you might need to allow for NL. This would be pretty simple as Lexer modes go.
(BTW you can use x+ to get the same effect as x x*)
relationshipDeclaration
: StringLiteral? ARROW RD_StringLiteral+
;
I don't think there's a third option for dealing with this.
I'm not fully sure how to word my question, so sorry for the rough title.
I am trying to create a pattern that can identify variable names with the following restraints:
Must begin with a letter
First letter may be followed by any combination of letters, numbers, and hyphens
First letter may be followed with nothing
The variable name must not be entirely X's ([xX]+ is a seperate identifier in this grammar)
So for example, these would all be valid:
Avariable123
Bee-keeper
Y
E-3
But the following would not be valid:
XXXX
X
3variable
5
I am able to meet the first three requirements with my current identifier, but I am really struggling to change it so that it doesn't pick up variables that are entirely the letter X.
Here is what I have so far: [a-z][a-z0-9\-]* {return (NAME);}
Can anyone suggest a way of editing this to avoid variables that are made up of just the letter X?
The easiest way to handle that sort of requirement is to have one pattern which matches the exceptional string and another pattern, which comes afterwards in the file, which matches all the strings:
[xX]+ { /* matches all-x tokens */ }
[[:alpha:]][[:alnum:]-]* { /* handle identifiers */ }
This works because lex (and almost all lex derivatives) select the first match if two patterns match the same longest token.
Of course, you need to know what you want to do with the exceptional symbol. If you just want to accept it as some token type, there's no problem; you just do that. If, on the other hand, the intention was to break it into subtokens, perhaps individual letters, then you'll have to use yyless(), and you might want to switch to a new lexing state in order to avoid repeatedly matching the same long sequence of Xs. But maybe that doesn't matter in your case.
See the flex manual for more details and examples.
I'm using the ANTLR 4 plugin in IntelliJ, and I have the most bizarre bug. I'll start with the relevant parser/lexer rules:
// Take care of whitespace.
WS : [ \r\t\f\n]+ -> skip;
OTHER: . -> skip;
STRING
: '"' [A-z ]+ '"'
;
evaluate // starting rule.
: textbox? // could be an empty textbox.
;
textbox
: (row '\n')*
;
row
: ability
| ability_list
ability
: activated_ability
| triggered_ability
| static_ability
triggered_ability
: trigger_words ',' STRING
;
trigger_words
: ('when'|'whenever'|'as') whenever_triggers|'at'
;
whenever_triggers
: triggerer (('or'|'and') triggerer)* // this line has the issue.
;
triggerer
: self
self: '~'
I pass it this text: whenever ~ or ~, and it fails on the or, saying line 1:10 mismatched input ' or' expecting {'or', 'and'}. However, if I add a space to the whenever_triggers rule's or string (making it ' or'|'and'), it works fine.
The weirdest thing is that if I try whenever ~ and ~, it works fine even without the rule having a space in the and string. This doesn't change if I make 'and'|'or' a lexer rule either. It's just bizarre. I've confirmed this bug happens when running the 'test rig' in Antlrworks 2, so it's not just an IntelliJ thing.
This is an image of the parse tree when the error occurs:
Alright you have found the answer more or less by yourself so with this answer of mine I will focus on explaining why the problem occured in the first place.
First of all - for everyone stumbling upon this question - the problem was that he had another implicit lexer rule defined that looked like this ' or' (notice the whitespace). Changing that to 'or' resolved the problem.
But why was that a problem?
In order to understand that you have to understand what ANTLR does if you write '<something>' in one of your parser rules: When compiling the grammar it will generate a new lexer rule for each of those declarations. These lexer rules will be created before the lexer rules defined in your grammar. The lexer itself will match the given input into tokens and for that it processes each lexer rule at a time in the order they have been declared. Therefore it will always start with the implicit token definitions and then move on to the topmost "real" lexer rule.
The problem is that the lexer isn't too clever about this process that means once it has matched some input with the current lexer rule it will create a respective token and moves on with the trailing input.
As a result a lexer rule that comes afterwards that would have matched the input as well (but as another token as it is a different lexer rule) will be skipped so that the respective input might not have the expected token type because the lexer rules have overwrritten themselves.
In your example the self-overwriting rules are ' or'(Token 1) and 'or'(Token 2). Each of those implicit lexer rule declarations will result in a different lexer rule and as the first one got matched I assume that it is declared before the second one.
Now look at your input: whenever ~ or ~ The lexer will start interpreting it and the first rule it comes across is ' or' (After the start is matched of course) and it will match the input as there really is a space before the or. Therefore it will match it as Token 1.
The parser on the other hand is expecting a Token 2 at this point so that it will complain about the given input (although it really is complaining about the wrong token type). Altering the input to whenever ~or ~ will result in the correct interpretation.
Exactly that is the reason why you shouldn't use implicit token definitions in your grammar (unless it is really small). Create a new lexer rule for every input and start with the most specific rules. That means rules that match special character sequences (e.g. keywords) should be declared before general lexer rules like ID or STRING or something like that. Rules that will match all the characters in order to prevent the lexer from throwing an error upon unrecognized input have to declared last as they would overwrite every lexer rule after them.
I'm new to ANTL4 and I can't seem to figure out how to get lexer actions to perform properly.
I have a code snippet that looks for input text:
SIZE10 : [a-zA-Z]* {getText().length() <= 10}?
I would expect that it does not match any combinations of letters that are over 10 letters long, however what this does is treat a 10+ letter string as two different tokens, instead of just nullifying the whole set of 10+ letters. How can I get this action to nullify the whole set of letters?
In addition, where can I go to see all the different token functions I can use (other than getText())? The documentation about lexer actions is really poor. In general, I'm having a hard time figuring out what resources can give me a definitive list of everything in the language. Even an entry point into the source code for me to read would be good at this point. The documentation is too general/basic for me.
EDIT: I've figured out how to send a RuntimeException, but I don't know where to get the elements needed for a proper RecognitionException.
The predicate in a rule directs the parsing process in a way that allows to match only partial input (like in your case) or essentially switch off a part of the grammar depending on certain conditions. In your case the SIZE10 rule is matched until the predicate returns false. Everything up to this event is then returned as a match for SIZE10. After that lexing continues at the point it ended for the previous token and if that is again a letter it will again match SIZE10 as long as the predicate says it is correct. That's a bit different than what you would expect (e.g. using the predicate as an all or nothing switch).
However, if you instead want to match the full set of letters first and then check if the length is <= 10 you can do this in a listener. You can hook into the exitSIZE10() event and reject the match by throwing a recognition exception.
For the usable functions in your actions see the API documentation for ANTLR. For instance here is the one for Token which shows you other possibilities beside getText(). In your action, consider the context you have. In a lexer rule you deal with a Token, hence getText() etc. work on the token. In a parser rule you have a ParserContext instead, which also has a getText() function but that works differently (collecting all child contexts text into a comma separated list).
I,m trying to use antlr4 with the IDL.g4 grammar, to implement some checks that our idl-files shall follow. One rule is about names. The rule are like:
ID contains only letters, digits and signle underscores,
ID begin with a letter,
ID end with a letter or digit.
ID is not a reserved Word in ADA, C, C++, Java, IDL
One way to do this check is to write a function that check a string for these properties and call it in the exit listeners for every rule that has an ID. E.g(refering to IDL.g4) in exitConst_decl(), exitInit_decl(), exitSimple_declarator() and a lot of more places. Maybe that is the correct way to do it. But I was thinking about putting that check directly on the lexical element ID. But don't know how to do that, or if it is possible at all.
Validating this type of constraint in the lexer would make it significantly more difficult to provide usable error messages for invalid identifiers. However, you can create a new parser rule identifier, and replace all references to ID in various parser rules to reference identifier instead.
identifier
: ID
;
You can then place your identifier validation logic inside of the single method enterIdentifier instead of all of the various rules that currently reference ID.