Logo Questions Linux Laravel Mysql Ubuntu Git Menu
 

How should I go about building a simple LR parser?

I am trying to build a simple LR parser for a type of template (configuration) file that will be used to generate some other files. I've read and read about LR parsers, but I just can't seem to understand it! I understand that there is a parse stack, a state stack and a parsing table. Tokens are read onto the parse stack, and when a rule is matched then the tokens are shifted or reduced, depending on the parsing table. This continues recursively until all of the tokens are reduced and the parsing is then complete.

The problem is I don't really know how to generate the parsing table. I've read quite a few descriptions, but the language is technical and I just don't understand it. Can anyone tell me how I would go about this?

Also, how would I store things like the rules of my grammar?

http://codepad.org/oRjnKacH is a sample of the file I'm trying to parse with my attempt at a grammar for its language.

I've never done this before, so I'm just looking for some advice, thanks.

like image 691
Isaac Avatar asked Feb 23 '10 19:02

Isaac


People also ask

Which is the most powerful LR parser and why?

True, Canonical LR parser is more powerful than LALR parser. The number of states in the parsing automaton differs between the CLR and LALR algorithms. CLR parsers have a much larger number of states than LALR parsers. Statement C: LALR parser is more powerful than Canonical LR parser.


1 Answers

In your study of parser theory, you seem to have missed a much more practical fact: virtually nobody ever even considers hand writing a table-driven, bottom-up parser like you're discussing. For most practical purposes, hand-written parsers use a top-down (usually recursive descent) structure.

The primary reason for using a table-driven parser is that it lets you write a (fairly) small amount of code that manipulates the table and such, that's almost completely generic (i.e. it works for any parser). Then you encode everything about a specific grammar into a form that's easy for a computer to manipulate (i.e. some tables).

Obviously, it would be entirely possible to do that by hand if you really wanted to, but there's almost never a real point. Generating the tables entirely by hand would be pretty excruciating all by itself.

For example, you normally start by constructing an NFA, which is a large table -- normally, one row for each parser state, and one column for each possible input. At each cell, you encode the next state to enter when you start in that state, and then receive that input. Most of these transitions are basically empty (i.e. they just say that input isn't allowed when you're in that state). Note: since the valid transitions are so sparse, most parser generators support some way of compressing these tables, but that doesn't change the basic idea).

You then step through all of those and follow some fairly simple rules to collect sets of NFA states together to become a state in the DFA. The rules are simple enough that it's pretty easy to program them into a computer, but you have to repeat them for every cell in the NFA table, and do essentially perfect book-keeping to produce a DFA that works correctly.

A computer can and will do that quite nicely -- for it, applying a couple of simple rules to every one of twenty thousand cells in the NFA state table is a piece of cake. It's hard to imagine subjecting a person to doing the same though -- I'm pretty sure under UN guidelines, that would be illegal torture.

like image 122
Jerry Coffin Avatar answered Sep 21 '22 14:09

Jerry Coffin