Difference between revisions of "PEG Library"

Revision as of 08:04, 12 August 2009

This page describes the Parsing Expression Library implementation for Eiffel. Information about PEGs can be found here [1].

Basic classes

All the parsers inherit from PEG_ABSTRACT_PEG which defines the common functionalities. The parsers are the same as in the definition of Wikipedia with the additional classes like whitespace support.

The parsers are combined to a object hierarchy which defines the grammar. A string can then be parsed via the the feature parser.parse_string ("Some source") on the root object.

Internal DSL

Objects can be combined via features, but the easier way is to use the defined operators. For instance if we want to define the simple grammar 'a' 'b' 'c'* we will simply write: a + b + (-c) Where a, b, c are already defined as character parsers parsing the right character (PEG_CHARACTER). The '+' operator concatenates the parsers to a sequence (PEG_SEQUENCE), while the prefix operator '-' wraps c into a one or more parser (PEG_ONE_OR_MORE). All the operators are:

• binary '+': Sequence concatenation
• binary '|': Choice concatenation
• prefix '+': wraps one or more
• prefix '-': wraps zero or more

Additionally there is the operator '|+' which acts like the binary '+' operator. In contrast to it, it inserts a whitespace* parser between the two operands. As it is often needed it makes sense to define it as an operator.

Be aware of a common mistake in combination with the binary '|'/'+' operators. If for instance you define an identifier as:

identifier := a_to_z + (- (a_to_z + underscore))

If you go on and define two new parsers based on the latter one:

identifier2 := identifier |+ identifier
identifier3 := identifier |+ identifier |+ identifier

.. then you won't get the expected result. Since the + operator (as well as |+ and |) reuse the Sequence instance, identifier32 use the sequence of identifier and add this very same instance to it. identifier3 will then use that corrupted identifier object which leads to unexpected behaviour while parsing. To prevent this problem identifier has to be fixated:

identifier.fixate

Building a domain model

A domain model can be directly created while parsing most of the times and doesn't have to be derived from the AST. With this implementation it can be achieved by defining builder agents on the various parser fragments. To show its workings we will look at an example grammar for a definition of a "list language":

'(' identifier (',' identifier)* ')'

We assume that identifier is already defined. The corresponding parser in the parser syntax would be

list := open_parenthesis + identifier + (- (comma + identifier)) + close_parenthesis

No we can define a feature on identifier which builds a list item and one on list which creates a list with the items:

list.set_behaviour (agent build_list)
identifier.set_behaviour (agent build_list_item)

The implementation of those are the following:

build_list_item (a_result: PEG_PARSER_RESULT): PEG_PARSER_RESULT
		-- Builds a value attribute
	local
		l_list_item: LIST_ITEM
	do
		Result := a_result
		if attached {STRING} Result.internal_result.first as l_name then
			create l_list_item.make_with_name (l_name)
		end
		Result.replace_result ()
	end

build_list (a_result: PEG_PARSER_RESULT): PEG_PARSER_RESULT
		-- Builds a value attribute
	do
		Result := a_result
		Result.replace_result (Result.internal_result)
	end

Error Handling

To fix source code we need to output syntax errors detected in the parsing process. After every parsing with the parse_string feature we get a PEG_PARSING_RESULT with all the information we need. On the one hand there is the above mentioned internal_result which is a list of domain models (possibly empty). On the other hand the PEG_PARSING_RESULT object tells you if and where an error occurred. There are two different cases of a failure: either the parser failed on a character expecting an other one and thus flagging the parsing result as a failure. Or it didn't fail but some of the source code has not been parsed, so only a part of the code is valid. In the first case we can find out where the syntax lies by inquiring longest_match_line_row:

l_result.longest_match_line_row

This feature returns the line and row where the parser failed in a TUPLE [line, row: INTEGER]. For the second scenario we have to check if the string left to parse is empty:

l_result.left_to_parse.is_empty

If it is empty everything could be parsed. Otherwise we will find the location where the parsing ended with the same l_result.longest_match_line_row as before.

Advanced error handling

Most of the times source code can have semantic errors which can't be detected directly via the syntax. There is the possibility of analyzing the domain model after it has been generated. With PEGs we can directly interfere with the parsing process and add errors/warnings to the output (PEG_PARSER_RESULT). If we have the building agents defined we can validate them in the same feature. As an example we take the previously defined list grammar and expand it: