Search Results

Search found 14 results on 1 pages for 'ebnf'.

Page 1/1 | 1 

  • Where can I get material for learning EBNF?

    - by yesraaj
    Extended Backus–Naur Form: EBNF I'm very new to parsing concepts. Where can I get sufficiently easy to read and follow material for writing a grammar for the boost::spirit library, which uses a grammar similar to EBNF? Currently I am looking into EBNF from Wikipedia.

    Read the article

  • Converting EBNF to BNF

    - by Vivin Paliath
    It's been a few years since my computer-language class and so I've forgotten the finer points of BNF's and EBNF's and I don't have a textbook next to me. Specifically, I've forgotten how to convert an EBNF into BNF. From what little I remember, I know that one of the main points is to convert { term } into <term> | <many-terms>. But I don't remember the other rules. I've tried to look this up online but I can only find links to either homework questions, or a small comment about converting terms with curly braces. I can't find an exhaustive list of rules that define the translation.

    Read the article

  • Is it easier to write a recursive-descent parser using an EBNF or a BNF?

    - by Vivin Paliath
    I've got a BNF and EBNF for a grammar. The BNF is obviously more verbose. I have a fairly good idea as far as using the BNF to build a recursive-descent parser; there are many resources for this. I am having trouble finding resources to convert an EBNF to a recursive-descent parser. Is this because it's more difficult? I recall from my CS theory classes that we went over EBNFs, but we didn't go over converting them into a recursive-descent parser. We did go over converting BNF's into a recursive-descent parser. The reason I'm asking is because the EBNF is more compact. From looking at the EBNF's in general, I notice that terms enclosed between { and } can be converted into a while loop. Are there any other guidelines or rules?

    Read the article

  • How to create an AST with ANTLR from a hierarchical key-value syntax

    - by Brabster
    I've been looking at parsing a key-value data format with ANTLR. Pretty straightforward, but the keys represent a hierarchy. A simplified example of my input syntax: /a/b/c=2 /a/b/d/e=3 /a/b/d/f=4 In my mind, this represents a tree structured as follows: (a (b (= c 2) (d (= e 3) (= f 4)))) The nearest I can get is to use the following grammar: /* Parser Rules */ start: (component NEWLINE?)* EOF -> (component)*; component: FORWARD_SLASH ALPHA_STRING component -> ^(ALPHA_STRING component) | FORWARD_SLASH ALPHA_STRING EQUALS value -> ^(EQUALS ALPHA_STRING value); value: ALPHA_STRING; /* Lexer Rules */ NEWLINE : '\r'? '\n'; ALPHA_STRING : ('a'..'z'|'A'..'Z'|'0'..'9')+; EQUALS : '='; FORWARD_SLASH : '/'; Which produces: (a (b (= c 2))) (a (b (d (= e 3)))) (a (b (d (= f 4)))) I'm not sure whether I'm asking too much from a generic tool such as ANTLR here, and this is as close I can get with this approach. That is, from here I consume the parts of the tree and create the data structure I want by hand. So - can I produce the tree structure I want directly from a grammar? If so, how? If not, why not - is it a technical limitation in ANTLR or is it something more CS-y to do with the type of language involved?

    Read the article

  • RIF PRD: Presentation syntax issues

    - by Charles Young
    Over Christmas I got to play a bit with the W3C RIF PRD and came across a few issues which I thought I would record for posterity. Specifically, I was working on a grammar for the presentation syntax using a GLR grammar parser tool (I was using the current CTP of ‘M’ (MGrammer) and Intellipad – I do so hope the MS guys don’t kill off M and Intellipad now they have dropped the other parts of SQL Server Modelling). I realise that the presentation syntax is non-normative and that any issues with it do not therefore compromise the standard. However, presentation syntax is useful in its own right, and it would be great to iron out any issues in a future revision of the standard. The main issues are actually not to do with the grammar at all, but rather with the ‘running example’ in the RIF PRD recommendation. I started with the code provided in Example 9.1. There are several discrepancies when compared with the EBNF rules documented in the standard. Broadly the problems can be categorised as follows: ·      Parenthesis mismatch – the wrong number of parentheses are used in various places. For example, in GoldRule, the RHS of the rule (the ‘Then’) is nested in the LHS (‘the If’). In NewCustomerAndWidgetRule, the RHS is orphaned from the LHS. Together with additional incorrect parenthesis, this leads to orphanage of UnknownStatusRule from the entire Document. ·      Invalid use of parenthesis in ‘Forall’ constructs. Parenthesis should not be used to enclose formulae. Removal of the invalid parenthesis gave me a feeling of inconsistency when comparing formulae in Forall to formulae in If. The use of parenthesis is not actually inconsistent in these two context, but in an If construct it ‘feels’ as if you are enclosing formulae in parenthesis in a LISP-like fashion. In reality, the parenthesis is simply being used to group subordinate syntax elements. The fact that an If construct can contain only a single formula as an immediate child adds to this feeling of inconsistency. ·      Invalid representation of compact URIs (CURIEs) in the context of Frame productions. In several places the URIs are not qualified with a namespace prefix (‘ex1:’). This conflicts with the definition of CURIEs in the RIF Datatypes and Built-Ins 1.0 document. Here are the productions: CURIE          ::= PNAME_LN                  | PNAME_NS PNAME_LN       ::= PNAME_NS PN_LOCAL PNAME_NS       ::= PN_PREFIX? ':' PN_LOCAL       ::= ( PN_CHARS_U | [0-9] ) ((PN_CHARS|'.')* PN_CHARS)? PN_CHARS       ::= PN_CHARS_U                  | '-' | [0-9] | #x00B7                  | [#x0300-#x036F] | [#x203F-#x2040] PN_CHARS_U     ::= PN_CHARS_BASE                  | '_' PN_CHARS_BASE ::= [A-Z] | [a-z] | [#x00C0-#x00D6] | [#x00D8-#x00F6]                  | [#x00F8-#x02FF] | [#x0370-#x037D] | [#x037F-#x1FFF]                  | [#x200C-#x200D] | [#x2070-#x218F] | [#x2C00-#x2FEF]                  | [#x3001-#xD7FF] | [#xF900-#xFDCF] | [#xFDF0-#xFFFD]                  | [#x10000-#xEFFFF] PN_PREFIX      ::= PN_CHARS_BASE ((PN_CHARS|'.')* PN_CHARS)? The more I look at CURIEs, the more my head hurts! The RIF specification allows prefixes and colons without local names, which surprised me. However, the CURIE Syntax 1.0 working group note specifically states that this form is supported…and then promptly provides a syntactic definition that seems to preclude it! However, on (much) deeper inspection, it appears that ‘ex1:’ (for example) is allowed, but would really represent a ‘fragment’ of the ‘reference’, rather than a prefix! Ouch! This is so completely ambiguous that it surely calls into question the whole CURIE specification.   In any case, RIF does not allow local names without a prefix. ·      Missing ‘External’ specifiers for built-in functions and predicates.  The EBNF specification enforces this for terms within frames, but does not appear to enforce (what I believe is) the correct use of External on built-in predicates. In any case, the running example only specifies ‘External’ once on the predicate in UnknownStatusRule. External() is required in several other places. ·      The List used on the LHS of UnknownStatusRule is comma-delimited. This is not supported by the EBNF definition. Similarly, the argument list of pred:list-contains is illegally comma-delimited. ·      Unnecessary use of conjunction around a single formula in DiscountRule. This is strictly legal in the EBNF, but redundant.   All the above issues concern the presentation syntax used in the running example. There are a few minor issues with the grammar itself. Note that Michael Kiefer stated in his paper “Rule Interchange Format: The Framework” that: “The presentation syntax of RIF … is an abstract syntax and, as such, it omits certain details that might be important for unambiguous parsing.” ·      The grammar cannot differentiate unambiguously between strategies and priorities on groups. A processor is forced to resolve this by detecting the use of IRIs and integers. This could easily be fixed in the grammar.   ·      The grammar cannot unambiguously parse the ‘->’ operator in frames. Specifically, ‘-’ characters are allowed in PN_LOCAL names and hence a parser cannot determine if ‘status->’ is (‘status’ ‘->’) or (‘status-’ ‘>’).   One way to fix this is to amend the PN_LOCAL production as follows: PN_LOCAL ::= ( PN_CHARS_U | [0-9] ) ((PN_CHARS|'.')* ((PN_CHARS)-('-')))? However, unilaterally changing the definition of this production, which is defined in the SPARQL Query Language for RDF specification, makes me uncomfortable. ·      I assume that the presentation syntax is case-sensitive. I couldn’t find this stated anywhere in the documentation, but function/predicate names do appear to be documented as being case-sensitive. ·      The EBNF does not specify whitespace handling. A couple of productions (RULE and ACTION_BLOCK) are crafted to enforce the use of whitespace. This is not necessary. It seems inconsistent with the rest of the specification and can cause parsing issues. In addition, the Const production exhibits whitespaces issues. The intention may have been to disallow the use of whitespace around ‘^^’, but any direct implementation of the EBNF will probably allow whitespace between ‘^^’ and the SYMSPACE. Of course, I am being a little nit-picking about all this. On the whole, the EBNF translated very smoothly and directly to ‘M’ (MGrammar) and proved to be fairly complete. I have encountered far worse issues when translating other EBNF specifications into usable grammars.   I can’t imagine there would be any difficulty in implementing the same grammar in Antlr, COCO/R, gppg, XText, Bison, etc. A general observation, which repeats a point made above, is that the use of parenthesis in the presentation syntax can feel inconsistent and un-intuitive.   It isn’t actually inconsistent, but I think the presentation syntax could be improved by adopting braces, rather than parenthesis, to delimit subordinate syntax elements in a similar way to so many programming languages. The familiarity of braces would communicate the structure of the syntax more clearly to people like me.  If braces were adopted, parentheses could be retained around ‘var (frame | ‘new()’) constructs in action blocks. This use of parenthesis feels very LISP-like, and I think that this is my issue. It’s as if the presentation syntax represents the deformed love-child of LISP and C. In some places (specifically, action blocks), parenthesis is used in a LISP-like fashion. In other places it is used like braces in C. I find this quite confusing. Here is a corrected version of the running example (Example 9.1) in compliant presentation syntax: Document(    Prefix( ex1 <http://example.com/2009/prd2> )    (* ex1:CheckoutRuleset *)  Group rif:forwardChaining (     (* ex1:GoldRule *)    Group 10 (      Forall ?customer such that And(?customer # ex1:Customer                                     ?customer[ex1:status->"Silver"])        (Forall ?shoppingCart such that ?customer[ex1:shoppingCart->?shoppingCart]           (If Exists ?value (And(?shoppingCart[ex1:value->?value]                                  External(pred:numeric-greater-than-or-equal(?value 2000))))            Then Do(Modify(?customer[ex1:status->"Gold"])))))      (* ex1:DiscountRule *)    Group (      Forall ?customer such that ?customer # ex1:Customer        (If Or( ?customer[ex1:status->"Silver"]                ?customer[ex1:status->"Gold"])         Then Do ((?s ?customer[ex1:shoppingCart-> ?s])                  (?v ?s[ex1:value->?v])                  Modify(?s [ex1:value->External(func:numeric-multiply (?v 0.95))]))))      (* ex1:NewCustomerAndWidgetRule *)    Group (      Forall ?customer such that And(?customer # ex1:Customer                                     ?customer[ex1:status->"New"] )        (If Exists ?shoppingCart ?item                   (And(?customer[ex1:shoppingCart->?shoppingCart]                        ?shoppingCart[ex1:containsItem->?item]                        ?item # ex1:Widget ) )         Then Do( (?s ?customer[ex1:shoppingCart->?s])                  (?val ?s[ex1:value->?val])                  (?voucher ?customer[ex1:voucher->?voucher])                  Retract(?customer[ex1:voucher->?voucher])                  Retract(?voucher)                  Modify(?s[ex1:value->External(func:numeric-multiply(?val 0.90))]))))      (* ex1:UnknownStatusRule *)    Group (      Forall ?customer such that ?customer # ex1:Customer        (If Not(Exists ?status                       (And(?customer[ex1:status->?status]                            External(pred:list-contains(List("New" "Bronze" "Silver" "Gold") ?status)) )))         Then Do( Execute(act:print(External(func:concat("New customer: " ?customer))))                  Assert(?customer[ex1:status->"New"]))))  ) )   I hope that helps someone out there :-)

    Read the article

  • How to get SQL Railroad Diagrams from MSDN BNF syntax notation.

    - by Phil Factor
    pre {margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:8.0pt; font-family:"Courier New"; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; } On SQL Server Books-On-Line, in the Transact-SQL Reference (database Engine), every SQL Statement has its syntax represented in  ‘Backus–Naur Form’ notation (BNF)  syntax. For a programmer in a hurry, this should be ideal because It is the only quick way to understand and appreciate all the permutations of the syntax. It is a great feature once you get your eye in. It isn’t the only way to get the information;  You can, of course, reverse-engineer an understanding of the syntax from the examples, but your understanding won’t be complete, and you’ll have wasted time doing it. BNF is a good start in representing the syntax:  Oracle and SQLite go one step further, and have proper railroad diagrams for their syntax, which is a far more accessible way of doing it. There are three problems with the BNF on MSDN. Firstly, it is isn’t a standard version of  BNF, but an ancient fork from EBNF, inherited from Sybase. Secondly, it is excruciatingly difficult to understand, and thirdly it has a number of syntactic and semantic errors. The page describing DML triggers, for example, currently has the absurd BNF error that makes it state that all statements in the body of the trigger must be separated by commas.  There are a few other detail problems too. Here is the offending syntax for a DML trigger, pasted from MSDN. Trigger on an INSERT, UPDATE, or DELETE statement to a table or view (DML Trigger) CREATE TRIGGER [ schema_name . ]trigger_name ON { table | view } [ WITH <dml_trigger_option> [ ,...n ] ] { FOR | AFTER | INSTEAD OF } { [ INSERT ] [ , ] [ UPDATE ] [ , ] [ DELETE ] } [ NOT FOR REPLICATION ] AS { sql_statement [ ; ] [ ,...n ] | EXTERNAL NAME <method specifier [ ; ] > }   <dml_trigger_option> ::=     [ ENCRYPTION ]     [ EXECUTE AS Clause ]   <method_specifier> ::=  This should, of course, be /* Trigger on an INSERT, UPDATE, or DELETE statement to a table or view (DML Trigger) */ CREATE TRIGGER [ schema_name . ]trigger_name ON { table | view } [ WITH <dml_trigger_option> [ ,...n ] ] { FOR | AFTER | INSTEAD OF } { [ INSERT ] [ , ] [ UPDATE ] [ , ] [ DELETE ] } [ NOT FOR REPLICATION ] AS { {sql_statement [ ; ]} [ ...n ] | EXTERNAL NAME <method_specifier> [ ; ] }   <dml_trigger_option> ::=     [ ENCRYPTION ]     [ EXECUTE AS CLAUSE ]   <method_specifier> ::=     assembly_name.class_name.method_name I’d love to tell Microsoft when I spot errors like this so they can correct them but I can’t. Obviously, there is a mechanism on MSDN to get errors corrected by using comments, but that doesn’t work for me (*Error occurred while saving your data.”), and when I report that the comment system doesn’t work to MSDN, I get no reply. I’ve been trying to create railroad diagrams for all the important SQL Server SQL statements, as good as you’d find for Oracle, and have so far published the CREATE TABLE and ALTER TABLE railroad diagrams based on the BNF. Although I’ve been aware of them, I’ve never realised until recently how many errors there are. Then, Colin Daley created a translator for the SQL Server dialect of  BNF which outputs standard EBNF notation used by the W3C. The example MSDN BNF for the trigger would be rendered as … /* Trigger on an INSERT, UPDATE, or DELETE statement to a table or view (DML Trigger) */ create_trigger ::= 'CREATE TRIGGER' ( schema_name '.' ) ? trigger_name 'ON' ( table | view ) ( 'WITH' dml_trigger_option ( ',' dml_trigger_option ) * ) ? ( 'FOR' | 'AFTER' | 'INSTEAD OF' ) ( ( 'INSERT' ) ? ( ',' ) ? ( 'UPDATE' ) ? ( ',' ) ? ( 'DELETE' ) ? ) ( 'NOT FOR REPLICATION' ) ? 'AS' ( ( sql_statement ( ';' ) ? ) + | 'EXTERNAL NAME' method_specifier ( ';' ) ? )   dml_trigger_option ::= ( 'ENCRYPTION' ) ? ( 'EXECUTE AS CLAUSE' ) ?   method_specifier ::= assembly_name '.' class_name '.' method_name Colin’s intention was to allow anyone to paste SQL Server’s BNF notation into his website-based parser, and from this generate classic railroad diagrams via Gunther Rademacher's Railroad Diagram Generator.  Colin's application does this for you: you're not aware that you are moving to a different site.  Because Colin's 'translator' it is a parser, it will pick up syntax errors. Once you’ve fixed the syntax errors, you will get the syntax in the form of a human-readable railroad diagram and, in this form, the semantic mistakes become flamingly obvious. Gunter’s Railroad Diagram Generator is brilliant. To be able, after correcting the MSDN dialect of BNF, to generate a standard EBNF, and from thence to create railroad diagrams for SQL Server’s syntax that are as good as Oracle’s, is a great boon, and many thanks to Colin for the idea. Here is the result of the W3C EBNF from Colin’s application then being run through the Railroad diagram generator. create_trigger: dml_trigger_option: method_specifier:   Now that’s much better, you’ll agree. This is pretty easy to understand, and at this point any error is immediately obvious. This should be seriously useful, and it is to me. However  there is that snag. The BNF is generally incorrect, and you can’t expect the average visitor to mess about with it. The answer is, of course, to correct the BNF on MSDN and maybe even add railroad diagrams for the syntax. Stop giggling! I agree it won’t happen. In the meantime, we need to collaboratively store and publish these corrected syntaxes ourselves as we do them. How? GitHub?  SQL Server Central?  Simple-Talk? What should those of us who use the system  do with our corrected EBNF so that anyone can use them without hassle?

    Read the article

  • How would I code a complex formula parser manually?

    - by StormianRootSolver
    Hm, this is language - agnostic, I would prefer doing it in C# or F#, but I'm more interested this time in the question "how would that work anyway". What I want to accomplish ist: a) I want to LEARN it - it's about my ego this time, it's for a fun project where I want to show myself that I'm a really good at this stuff b) I know a tiny little bit about EBNF (although I don't know yet, how operator precedence works in EBNF - Irony.NET does it right, I checked the examples, but this is a bit ominous to me) c) My parser should be able to take this: 5 * (3 + (2 - 9 * (5 / 7)) + 9) for example and give me the right results d) To be quite frankly, this seems to be the biggest problem in writing a compiler or even an interpreter for me. I would have no problem generating even 64 bit assembler code (I CAN write assembler manually), but the formula parser... e) Another thought: even simple computers (like my old Sharp 1246S with only about 2kB of RAM) can do that... it can't be THAT hard, right? And even very, very old programming languages have formula evaluation... BASIC is from 1964 and they already could calculate the kind of formula I presented as an example f) A few ideas, a few inspirations would be really enough - I just have no clue how to do operator precedence and the parentheses - I DO, however, know that it involves an AST and that many people use a stack So, what do you think?

    Read the article

  • lexers vs parsers

    - by Naveen
    Are lexers and parsers really that different in theory ? It seems fashionable to hate regular expressions: coding horror, another blog post. However, popular lexing based tools: pygments, geshi, or prettify, all use regular expressions. They seem to lex anything... When is lexing enough, when do you need EBNF ? Has anyone used the tokens produced by these lexers with bison or antlr parser generators?

    Read the article

  • shift reduce&& reduce reduce errors in build parser for python garmmer

    - by user366580
    i wanna build buttom up parser by java cup i write code in java cup , it is for python language so i used grammer was written in this site : but not all grammer , i choice partial set ,just while , identifer also i smiplified them when i did compile for the java cup that i write by write this command in command prompt window : java java_cup.Main -parser CalcParser -symbols CalcSymbol < javacupfile.cup i get conflict errors ,they are of type reduce-shift conflict and reduce-reduce conflict you can see to print screen of the errors in these links image 1 click here to see imge1 the grammer was in EBNF form in as refernce site and i convert it to BNF form maybe i make mistake in converting so i get such errors the origanl grammmer was // grammer in EBNF form identifier ::= (letter|"_") (letter | digit | "_")* letter ::= lowercase | uppercase lowercase ::= "a"..."z" uppercase ::= "A"..."Z" digit ::= "0"..."9 compound_stmt ::= if_stmt | while_stmt for_stmt ::= "for" target_list "in" expression_list ":" suite ["else" ":" suite] while_stmt ::= "while" expression ":" suite ["else" ":" suite] suite ::= stmt_list NEWLINE stmt_list ::= simple_stmt (";" simple_stmt)* [";"] simple_stmt ::= expression_stmt expression_stmt ::= expression_list expression_list ::= expression ( "," expression )* [","] expression ::= conditional_expression conditional_expression ::= or_test ["if" or_test "else" expression] or_test ::= and_test | or_test "or" and_test and_test ::= not_test | and_test "and" not_test not_test ::= comparison | "not" not_test comparison ::= or_expr ( comp_operator or_expr )* comp_operator ::= "<" | ">" | "==" | ">=" | "<=" | "<>" | "!=" | "is" ["not"] | ["not"] "in" or_expr ::= xor_expr | or_expr "|" xor_expr xor_expr ::= and_expr | xor_expr "^" and_expr and_expr ::= "&" | and_expr the grammer after converting to BNF form identifier ::=letterletter| letterdigit| letter"_"| "_"letter | "_"digit | "_""_" letter ::= lowercase | uppercase lowercase ::= "a"..."z" uppercase ::= "A"..."Z" digit ::= "0"..."9 while_stmt ::= "while" expression ":" suite "else" ":" suite |"while" expression ":" suite suite ::= stmt_list NEWLINE stmt_list ::= simple_stmt ";" simple_stmt stmt_list|";" simple_stmt ::= expression_stmt expression_stmt ::= expression_list expression_list ::= expression "," expression expression_list| "," expression ::= conditional_expression conditional_expression ::= or_test "if" or_test "else" expression |or_test or_test ::= and_test | or_test "or" and_test and_test ::= not_test | and_test "and" not_test not_test ::= comparison | "not" not_test comparison ::= or_expr comp_operator or_expr comp_operator ::= "<" | ">" | "==" | ">=" | "<=" | "<>" | "!=" | "is" ["not"] | ["not"] "in" or_expr ::= xor_expr | or_expr "|" xor_expr xor_expr ::= and_expr | xor_expr "^" and_expr and_expr ::= "&" | and_expr and the java cup file that i compile and get those errors is import java.io.*; terminal COMA; terminal ELSE; terminal WHILE; terminal NEWLINE; terminal SEMCOLON; terminal CAMMA; terminal IF; terminal OR; terminal AND; terminal NOT; terminal LESS; terminal GREATER; terminal EQUAL; terminal GREATERorE; terminal LESSorE; terminal NEQUAL; terminal OROP; terminal XOROP; terminal ANDOP; terminal Integer DIGIT; terminal java.lang.String LOWERCASE; terminal java.lang.String UPPERCASE; non terminal java.lang.String IDENTIFIER; non terminal java.lang.String LETTER; non terminal COMPOUND_STMT; non terminal WHILE_STMT; non terminal EXPRESSION; non terminal SUITE ; non terminal STMT_LIST; non terminal SIMPLE_STMT; non terminal EXPRESSION_STMT; non terminal EXPRESSION_LIST; non terminal CONDITITONAL_EXPRESSION; non terminal OR_TEST; non terminal AND_TEST; non terminal NOT_TEST; non terminal COMPARISON; non terminal COMP_OPERATOR; non terminal OR_EXPR; non terminal XOR_EXPR; non terminal AND_EXPR; IDENTIFIER ::=LETTER{: System.out.printf("lowercase"); :}| {: System.out.printf("uppercase"); :} LETTER{: System.out.printf("lowercase"); :}| {: System.out.printf("uppercase"); :}| LETTER{: System.out.printf("lowercase"); :}| {: System.out.printf("uppercase"); :} DIGIT; LETTER ::= LOWERCASE | UPPERCASE; COMPOUND_STMT ::=WHILE_STMT; WHILE_STMT ::= WHILE{: System.out.printf( "while"); :} EXPRESSION COMA {: System.out.printf(":"); :} SUITE ELSE {: System.out.printf("else" ); :} COMA{: System.out.printf( ":" ); :} SUITE |WHILE{: System.out.printf( "while" ); :} EXPRESSION COMA{: System.out.printf( ":" ); :} SUITE; SUITE ::= STMT_LIST NEWLINE{: System.out.printf( "newline" ); :}; STMT_LIST ::= SIMPLE_STMT SEMCOLON{: System.out.printf( ";" ); :} SIMPLE_STMT STMT_LIST|SEMCOLON{: System.out.printf( ";" ); :}; SIMPLE_STMT ::=EXPRESSION_STMT; EXPRESSION_STMT ::=EXPRESSION_LIST; EXPRESSION_LIST ::= EXPRESSION CAMMA{: System.out.printf( "," ); :} EXPRESSION EXPRESSION_LIST| CAMMA{: System.out.printf( "," ); :}; EXPRESSION ::= CONDITITONAL_EXPRESSION; CONDITITONAL_EXPRESSION ::= OR_TEST IF{: System.out.printf( "if"); :} OR_TEST ELSE{: System.out.printf("else"); :} EXPRESSION |OR_TEST; OR_TEST ::= AND_TEST | OR_TEST OR{: System.out.printf( "or"); :} AND_TEST; AND_TEST ::= NOT_TEST | AND_TEST AND{: System.out.printf( "and"); :} NOT_TEST; NOT_TEST ::= COMPARISON | NOT{: System.out.printf("not"); :} NOT_TEST; COMPARISON ::= OR_EXPR COMP_OPERATOR OR_EXPR ; COMP_OPERATOR ::= LESS{: System.out.printf( "<"); :} | GREATER{: System.out.printf(">"); :} | EQUAL{: System.out.printf("=="); :} | GREATERorE{: System.out.printf(">="); :} | LESSorE{: System.out.printf("<="); :} | NEQUAL{: System.out.printf("!="); :}; OR_EXPR ::= XOR_EXPR | OR_EXPR OROP{: System.out.printf("|"); :} XOR_EXPR; XOR_EXPR ::= AND_EXPR | XOR_EXPR XOROP {: System.out.printf("^"); :}XOR_EXPR; AND_EXPR ::= ANDOP{: System.out.printf("&"); :} | AND_EXPR; can any one told me how can solve this errors to build parser correcrtly??

    Read the article

  • How to transform a production to LL(1) for a list separated by a semicolon?

    - by Subb
    Hi, I'm reading this introductory book on parsing (which is pretty good btw) and one of the exercice is to "build a parser for your favorite language." Since I don't want to die today, I thought I could do a parser for something relatively simple, ie a simplified CSS. Note: This book teach you how to right a LL(1) parser using the recursive-descent algorithm. So, as a sub-exercice, I am building the grammar from what I know of CSS. But I'm stuck on a production that I can't transform in LL(1) : //EBNF block = "{", declaration, {";", declaration}, [";"], "}" //BNF <block> =:: "{" <declaration> "}" <declaration> =:: <single-declaration> <opt-end> | <single-declaration> ";" <declaration> <opt-end> =:: "" | ";" This describe a CSS block. Valid block can have the form : { property : value } { property : value; } { property : value; property : value } { property : value; property : value; } ... The problem is with the optional ";" at the end, because it overlap with the starting character of {";", declaration}, so when my parser meet a semicolon in this context, it doesn't know what to do. The book talk about this problem, but in its example, the semicolon is obligatory, so the rule can be modified like this : block = "{", declaration, ";", {declaration, ";"}, "}" So, Is it possible to achieve what I'm trying to do using a LL(1) parser?

    Read the article

  • How to transform a production to LL(1) grammar for a list separated by a semicolon?

    - by Subb
    Hi, I'm reading this introductory book on parsing (which is pretty good btw) and one of the exercice is to "build a parser for your favorite language." Since I don't want to die today, I thought I could do a parser for something relatively simple, ie a simplified CSS. Note: This book teach you how to right a LL(1) parser using the recursive-descent algorithm. So, as a sub-exercice, I am building the grammar from what I know of CSS. But I'm stuck on a production that I can't transform in LL(1) : //EBNF block = "{", declaration, {";", declaration}, [";"], "}" //BNF <block> =:: "{" <declaration> "}" <declaration> =:: <single-declaration> <opt-end> | <single-declaration> ";" <declaration> <opt-end> =:: "" | ";" This describe a CSS block. Valid block can have the form : { property : value } { property : value; } { property : value; property : value } { property : value; property : value; } ... The problem is with the optional ";" at the end, because it overlap with the starting character of {";", declaration}, so when my parser meet a semicolon in this context, it doesn't know what to do. The book talk about this problem, but in its example, the semicolon is obligatory, so the rule can be modified like this : block = "{", declaration, ";", {declaration, ";"}, "}" So, Is it possible to achieve what I'm trying to do using a LL(1) parser?

    Read the article

  • Do You Really Know Your Programming Languages?

    - by Kristopher Johnson
    I am often amazed at how little some of my colleagues know or care about their craft. Something that constantly frustrates me is that people don't want to learn any more than they need to about the programming languages they use every day. Many programmers seem content to learn some pidgin sub-dialect, and stick with that. If they see a keyword or construct that they aren't familiar with, they'll complain that the code is "tricky." What would you think of a civil engineer who shied away from calculus because it had "all those tricky math symbols?" I'm not suggesting that we all need to become "language lawyers." But if you make your living as a programmer, and claim to be a competent user of language X, then I think at a minimum you should know the following: Do you know the keywords of the language and what they do? What are the valid syntactic forms? How are memory, files, and other operating system resources managed? Where is the official language specification and library reference for the language? The last one is the one that really gets me. Many programmers seem to have no idea that there is a "specification" or "standard" for any particular language. I still talk to people who think that Microsoft invented C++, and that if a program doesn't compile under VC6, it's not a valid C++ program. Programmers these days have it easy when it comes to obtaining specs. Newer languages like C#, Java, Python, Ruby, etc. all have their documentation available for free from the vendors' web sites. Older languages and platforms often have standards controlled by standards bodies that demand payment for specs, but even that shouldn't be a deterrent: the C++ standard is available from ISO for $30 (and why am I the only person I know who has a copy?). Programming is hard enough even when you do know the language. If you don't, I don't see how you have a chance. What do the rest of you think? Am I right, or should we all be content with the typical level of programming language expertise? Update: Several great comments here. Thanks. A couple of people hit on something that I didn't think about: What really irks me is not the lack of knowledge, but the lack of curiosity and willingness to learn. It seems some people don't have any time to hone their craft, but they have plenty of time to write lots of bad code. And I don't expect people to be able to recite a list of keywords or EBNF expressions, but I do expect that when they see some code, they should have some inkling of what it does. Few people have complete knowledge of every dark corner of their language or platform, but everyone should at least know enough that when they see something unfamiliar, they will know how to get whatever additional information they need to understand it.

    Read the article

1