Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Syntactic Confectionery Delight
 
PerlMonks  

Re^2: Reversible parsing (with Parse::RecDescent?)

by goibhniu (Hermit)
on Mar 17, 2008 at 01:38 UTC ( #674507=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re: Reversible parsing (with Parse::RecDescent?)
in thread Reversible parsing (with Parse::RecDescent?)

First of all, thanks to Joost and Blockhead for your input above. It's a valuable, helpful discussion, but I think the bulk of my response is to ikegami, here.

ikegami, your work is VERY much appreciated. I've always admired the elegance of your code, and this is no exception. I have learned alot about writing P::RD grammars by just skimming yours, above, and know that with study I can learn more.

One thing I keep thinking both in my own development process on this project and in reading your (and Joost's and blockhead's) responses is that I'm definitely in a simplistic, proof-of-concept phase on this. You've pointed out that my grammar is currently trivial, and I think that is partly why. My concern is in the general case where I may have a much expanded and much less trivial grammar to maintain. At this point your tricks and style suggestions will go a long way toward helping with that; thank you. When I realized the error of my assumptions with P::RD::Deparse, I thought I would end up writing a function or functions to deparse it manually, and your examples present a good organization for doing so.

The question that still nags me is whether its necessary. I think your point about "-opt" and "-opt 1" prooves that a grammar is not necessarily reversible (and, I think, provides a problematic example for the joost/blockhead thread, above). Two different strings parse to the same parse tree. I could try to fix these on a case-by-case basis, but wonder if there's a general strategy for writing a grammar to avoid them (especially since I'm free to change the data structure emitted by the grammar if I please), or a general property of a grammar that could detect them (possibly for use in a mythic P::RD::ReverseParse for detecting error conditions in the input grammar). <update> What I'd like to avoid is making changes in two places; on the grammar side and on the deparse function side. </update>

In the general case, you propose that P::RD Actions and Directives along with error checking make it not possible. What would be an example case to illustrate the limitations of a BNF parser (and is there one already written on CPAN? the closest hit I found was Parse::Marpa)?

<update index='2' date='17-Mar-2008'> I stumbled across Tree::Parser, which seems to take coderefs to a parse subroutine separate from a deparse subroutine. This is consistent with ikegami's solution and is another example that contradicts my laziness in wanting to maintain the parse / deparse rules in one place. Perhaps I should give up and just write the deparse versions. </update>


#my sig used to say 'I humbly seek wisdom. '. Now it says:
use strict;
use warnings;
I humbly seek wisdom.


Comment on Re^2: Reversible parsing (with Parse::RecDescent?)
Select or Download Code

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://674507]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others surveying the Monastery: (10)
As of 2015-07-28 21:09 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    The top three priorities of my open tasks are (in descending order of likelihood to be worked on) ...









    Results (259 votes), past polls