I am searching for a way to "dump" abstract syntax trees into files so that code can be parsed with a compiler and then stored in a language- and compiler independent way. Yet I was unable to find any widely recognized way for doing this. Does such a way exist?
There are no standards for storing ASTs, or more importantly from your point of view, sharing them among tools. The reason is that ASTs are dependent on grammars (which vary; C has "many" depending on which specific compiler and version) and parsing technology.
There have been lots of attempts to define universal AST forms across multiple languages but none of them have really worked; the semantics of the operators varies too much. (Consider just "+": what does it really mean? In Fortran, you can add arrays, in Java, you can "add" strings).
However, one can write out specific ASTs rather easily. A simple means is to use some kind of notation in which a node is identified along with its recursive children using some kind of nested "parentheses".
Lisp S-expressions are a common way to do this. You can see an example of the S-expression style generated by our tools.
People have used XML for this, too, but it is pretty bulky. You can see an XML output example here.
I imagine Scheme (and perhaps Lisp) could be made more `user friendly' by using a different syntax. For example, instead of nested S-expressions with ugly parentheses, one could devise some kind of syntax closer to some of the more widely used languages (e.g. Java-like without needing to define classes).
It's not necessarily a bad thing if it's more verbose. For example, the syntax may require line separators and commas in the places where many people will expect them, and expect explicit return statements. Also, it doesn't seem that difficult to allow some operators to be used infix style (just obey the generally accepted operator preference rules).
And if it doesn't make things too messy, the syntax could even be backwards-compatible, so that in any place where an expression is expected, a normal S-expression between parentheses can be used.
What are your opinions and ideas about this? And does anything like this exist? (I expect it does, but "Scheme" is a worthless google term, I can't find anything!)
Originally, Lisp was planned to use a syntax called M-Expressions, with S-Expressions being only a transitional solution for easier compiler building. When M-Expressions were ready to be introduces, the programmers who had already taken on Lisp just stayed with what they had become accustomed to, and M-Expressions never caught on.
There is an infix notation in Guile, but it's rarely used. A good Lisp programmer doesn't even see the parens anymore, and prefix notation does have its merits...
I think "sweet expressions" might be one of the more thoughtful approaches to getting rid of the parentheses in Lisp. It apparently even supports macros.
http://www.dwheeler.com/readable/sweet-expressions.html
However, I think most people eventually get over the parentheses or use another language.
Take a look at "sweet-expressions", which provides a set of additional abbreviations for traditional s-expressions. They add syntactically-relevant indentation, a way to do infix, and traditional function calls like f(x). Unlike nearly all past efforts to make Lisps readable, sweet-expressions are backwards-compatible (you can freely mix well-formatted s-expressions and sweet-expressions), generic, and homoiconic.
Sweet-expressions were developed on http://readable.sourceforge.net and there is a sample implementation.
For Scheme there is a SRFI for sweet-expresssions: http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-110/
Try SRFI 49 for size. :-P
(Seriously, though, as Rafe commented, "I don't think anybody wants this".)
Some people consider Python to be a kind of Scheme with infix notation for operators, algebraic notation for functions and which uses a more "java-like" syntax for representing the language. I don't agree with that assessment, but I can see where the idea comes from.
The big problem with changing the notation for Scheme is that macros become very hard to write (to see how hard, take a look at the Nimrod language or Boo). Instead of working directly with the code as lists, you have to parse the input language first. This usually involves constructing an AST (abstract syntax tree) for the language from the input. When working directly with Scheme, this is unnecessary.
However, you might check out the SIX expression syntax in Gambit Scheme. There's a nice set of slides here which contains a discussion of this:
http://www.iro.umontreal.ca/~gambit/Gambit-inside-out.pdf
But don't tell anyone about it! (The inside joke is that someone suggests writing a Lisp without parentheses and with infix notation about once a day, and someone announces an implementation about once a month.)
There are some languages that do exactly that. For instance: Dylan.
Like lots of you guys on SO, I often write in several languages. And when it comes to planning stuff, (or even answering some SO questions), I actually think and write in some unspecified hybrid language. Although I used to be taught to do this using flow diagrams or UML-like diagrams, in retrospect, I find "my" pseudocode language has components of C, Python, Java, bash, Matlab, perl, Basic. I seem to unconsciously select the idiom best suited to expressing the concept/algorithm.
Common idioms might include Java-like braces for scope, pythonic list comprehensions or indentation, C++like inheritance, C#-style lambdas, matlab-like slices and matrix operations.
I noticed that it's actually quite easy for people to recognise exactly what I'm triying to do, and quite easy for people to intelligently translate into other languages. Of course, that step involves considering the corner cases, and the moments where each language behaves idiosyncratically.
But in reality, most of these languages share a subset of keywords and library functions which generally behave identically - maths functions, type names, while/for/if etc. Clearly I'd have to exclude many 'odd' languages like lisp, APL derivatives, but...
So my questions are,
Does code already exist that recognises the programming language of a text file? (Surely this must be a less complicated task than eclipse's syntax trees or than google translate's language guessing feature, right?) In fact, does the SO syntax highlighter do anything like this?
Is it theoretically possible to create a single interpreter or compiler that recognises what language idiom you're using at any moment and (maybe "intelligently") executes or translates to a runnable form. And flags the corner cases where my syntax is ambiguous with regards to behaviour. Immediate difficulties I see include: knowing when to switch between indentation-dependent and brace-dependent modes, recognising funny operators (like *pointer vs *kwargs) and knowing when to use list vs array-like representations.
Is there any language or interpreter in existence, that can manage this kind of flexible interpreting?
Have I missed an obvious obstacle to this being possible?
edit
Thanks all for your answers and ideas. I am planning to write a constraint-based heuristic translator that could, potentially, "solve" code for the intended meaning and translate into real python code. It will notice keywords from many common languages, and will use syntactic clues to disambiguate the human's intentions - like spacing, brackets, optional helper words like let or then, context of how variables are previously used etc, plus knowledge of common conventions (like capital names, i for iteration, and some simplistic limited understanding of naming of variables/methods e.g containing the word get, asynchronous, count, last, previous, my etc). In real pseudocode, variable naming is as informative as the operations themselves!
Using these clues it will create assumptions as to the implementation of each operation (like 0/1 based indexing, when should exceptions be caught or ignored, what variables ought to be const/global/local, where to start and end execution, and what bits should be in separate threads, notice when numerical units match / need converting). Each assumption will have a given certainty - and the program will list the assumptions on each statement, as it coaxes what you write into something executable!
For each assumption, you can 'clarify' your code if you don't like the initial interpretation. The libraries issue is very interesting. My translator, like some IDE's, will read all definitions available from all modules, use some statistics about which classes/methods are used most frequently and in what contexts, and just guess! (adding a note to the program to say why it guessed as such...) I guess it should attempt to execute everything, and warn you about what it doesn't like. It should allow anything, but let you know what the several alternative interpretations are, if you're being ambiguous.
It will certainly be some time before it can manage such unusual examples like #Albin Sunnanbo's ImportantCustomer example. But I'll let you know how I get on!
I think that is quite useless for everything but toy examples and strict mathematical algorithms. For everything else the language is not just the language. There are lots of standard libraries and whole environments around the languages. I think I write almost as many lines of library calls as I write "actual code".
In C# you have .NET Framework, in C++ you have STL, in Java you have some Java libraries, etc.
The difference between those libraries are too big to be just syntactic nuances.
<subjective>
There has been attempts at unifying language constructs of different languages to a "unified syntax". That was called 4GL language and never really took of.
</subjective>
As a side note I have seen a code example about a page long that was valid as c#, Java and Java script code. That can serve as an example of where it is impossible to determine the actual language used.
Edit:
Besides, the whole purpose of pseudocode is that it does not need to compile in any way. The reason you write pseudocode is to create a "sketch", however sloppy you like.
foreach c in ImportantCustomers{== OrderValue >=$1M}
SendMailInviteToSpecialEvent(c)
Now tell me what language it is and write an interpreter for that.
To detect what programming language is used: Detecting programming language from a snippet
I think it should be possible. The approach in 1. could be leveraged to do this, I think. I would try to do it iteratively: detect the syntax used in the first line/clause of code, "compile" it to intermediate form based on that detection, along with any important syntax (e.g. begin/end wrappers). Then the next line/clause etc. Basically write a parser that attempts to recognize each "chunk". Ambiguity could be flagged by the same algorithm.
I doubt that this has been done ... seems like the cognitive load of learning to write e.g. python-compatible pseudocode would be much easier than trying to debug the cases where your interpreter fails.
a. I think the biggest problem is that most pseudocode is invalid in any language. For example, I might completely skip object initialization in a block of pseudocode because for a human reader it is almost always straightforward to infer. But for your case it might be completely invalid in the language syntax of choice, and it might be impossible to automatically determine e.g. the class of the object (it might not even exist). Etc.
b. I think the best you can hope for is an interpreter that "works" (subject to 4a) for your pseudocode only, no-one else's.
Note that I don't think that 4a,4b are necessarily obstacles to it being possible. I just think it won't be useful for any practical purpose.
Recognizing what language a program is in is really not that big a deal. Recognizing the language of a snippet is more difficult, and recognizing snippets that aren't clearly delimited (what do you do if four lines are Python and the next one is C or Java?) is going to be really difficult.
Assuming you got the lines assigned to the right language, doing any sort of compilation would require specialized compilers for all languages that would cooperate. This is a tremendous job in itself.
Moreover, when you write pseudo-code you aren't worrying about the syntax. (If you are, you're doing it wrong.) You'll wind up with code that simply can't be compiled because it's incomplete or even contradictory.
And, assuming you overcame all these obstacles, how certain would you be that the pseudo-code was being interpreted the way you were thinking?
What you would have would be a new computer language, that you would have to write correct programs in. It would be a sprawling and ambiguous language, very difficult to work with properly. It would require great care in its use. It would be almost exactly what you don't want in pseudo-code. The value of pseudo-code is that you can quickly sketch out your algorithms, without worrying about the details. That would be completely lost.
If you want an easy-to-write language, learn one. Python is a good choice. Use pseudo-code for sketching out how processing is supposed to occur, not as a compilable language.
An interesting approach would be a "type-as-you-go" pseudocode interpreter. That is, you would set the language to be used up front, and then it would attempt to convert the pseudo code to real code, in real time, as you typed. An interactive facility could be used to clarify ambiguous stuff and allow corrections. Part of the mechanism could be a library of code which the converter tried to match. Over time, it could learn and adapt its translation based on the habits of a particular user.
People who program all the time will probably prefer to just use the language in most cases. However, I could see the above being a great boon to learners, "non-programmer programmers" such as scientists, and for use in brainstorming sessions with programmers of various languages and skill levels.
-Neil
Programs interpreting human input need to be given the option of saying "I don't know." The language PL/I is a famous example of a system designed to find a reasonable interpretation of anything resembling a computer program that could cause havoc when it guessed wrong: see http://horningtales.blogspot.com/2006/10/my-first-pli-program.html
Note that in the later language C++, when it resolves possible ambiguities it limits the scope of the type coercions it tries, and that it will flag an error if there is not a unique best interpretation.
I have a feeling that the answer to 2. is NO. All I need to prove it false is a code snippet that can be interpreted in more than one way by a competent programmer.
Does code already exist that
recognises the programming language
of a text file?
Yes, the Unix file command.
(Surely this must be a less
complicated task than eclipse's syntax
trees or than google translate's
language guessing feature, right?) In
fact, does the SO syntax highlighter
do anything like this?
As far as I can tell, SO has a one-size-fits-all syntax highlighter that tries to combine the keywords and comment syntax of every major language. Sometimes it gets it wrong:
def median(seq):
"""Returns the median of a list."""
seq_sorted = sorted(seq)
if len(seq) & 1:
# For an odd-length list, return the middle item
return seq_sorted[len(seq) // 2]
else:
# For an even-length list, return the mean of the 2 middle items
return (seq_sorted[len(seq) // 2 - 1] + seq_sorted[len(seq) // 2]) / 2
Note that SO's highlighter assumes that // starts a C++-style comment, but in Python it's the integer division operator.
This is going to be a major problem if you try to combine multiple languages into one. What do you do if the same token has different meanings in different languages? Similar situations are:
Is ^ exponentiation like in BASIC, or bitwise XOR like in C?
Is || logical OR like in C, or string concatenation like in SQL?
What is 1 + "2"? Is the number converted to a string (giving "12"), or is the string converted to a number (giving 3)?
Is there any language or interpreter
in existence, that can manage this
kind of flexible interpreting?
On another forum, I heard a story of a compiler (IIRC, for FORTRAN) that would compile any program regardless of syntax errors. If you had the line
= Y + Z
The compiler would recognize that a variable was missing and automatically convert the statement to X = Y + Z, regardless of whether you had an X in your program or not.
This programmer had a convention of starting comment blocks with a line of hyphens, like this:
C ----------------------------------------
But one day, they forgot the leading C, and the compiler choked trying to add dozens of variables between what it thought was subtraction operators.
"Flexible parsing" is not always a good thing.
To create a "pseudocode interpreter," it might be necessary to design a programming language that allows user-defined extensions to its syntax. There already are several programming languages with this feature, such as Coq, Seed7, Agda, and Lever. A particularly interesting example is the Inform programming language, since its syntax is essentially "structured English."
The Coq programming language allows "syntax extensions", so the language can be extended to parse new operators:
Notation "A /\ B" := (and A B).
Similarly, the Seed7 programming language can be extended to parse "pseudocode" using "structured syntax definitions." The while loop in Seed7 is defined in this way:
syntax expr: .while.().do.().end.while is -> 25;
Alternatively, it might be possible to "train" a statistical machine translation system to translate pseudocode into a real programming language, though this would require a large corpus of parallel texts.
I am reading a file that is filled
with hex numbers. I have to identify a
particular pattern, say "aaad" (without quotes) from
it. Every time I see the pattern, I
generate some data to some other file.
This would be a very common case in designing programs - parsing and looking for a particular pattern.
I have designed it as a Finite State Machine and structured structured it in C using switch-case to change states. This was the first implementation that occured to me.
DESIGN: Are there some better designs possible?
IMPLEMENTATION: Do you see some problems with using a switch case as I mentioned?
A hand-rolled FSM can work well for simple situations, but they tend to get unwieldy as the number of states and inputs grows.
There is probably no reason to change what you have already designed/implemented, but if you are interested in general-purpose text parsing techniques, you should probably look at things like regular expressions, Flex, Bison, and ANTLR.
For embarrassingly simple cases couple of if's or switch'es are sufficient.
For parsing a string on POSIX systems, man regex (3). For fully featured parsing of whole files (e.g. complex configs) use Lex/Flex and Yacc/Bison.
When writing in C++, look at Boost Regex for the simpler case and Boost Spirit for more complex one. Flex & Bison work with C++ too.
In a recent web application I built, I was pleasantly surprised when one of our users decided to use it to create something entirely in Japanese. However, the text was wrapped strangely and awkwardly. Apparently browsers don't cope with wrapping Japanese text very well, probably because it contains few spaces, as each character forms a whole word. However, that's not really a safe assumption to make as some words are constructed of several characters, and it is not safe to break some character groups into different lines.
Googling around hasn't really helped me understand the problem any better. It seems to me like one would need a dictionary of unbreakable patterns, and assume that everywhere else is safe to break. But I fear I don't know enough about Japanese to really know all the words, which I understand from some of my searching, are quite complicated.
How would you approach this problem? Are there any libraries or algorithms you are aware of that already exist that deal with this in a satisfactory way?
Japanese word wrap rules are called kinsoku shori and are surprisingly simple. They're actually mostly concerned with punctuation characters and do not try to keep words unbroken at all.
I just checked with a Japanese novel and indeed, both words in the syllabic kana script and those consisting of multiple Chinese ideograms are wrapped mid-word with impunity.
Below listed projects are useful to resolve Japanese wordwrap (or wordbreak from another point of view).
budou (Python): https://github.com/google/budou
mikan (JS): https://github.com/trkbt10/mikan.js
mikan.sharp (C#): https://github.com/YoungjaeKim/mikan.sharp
mikan has regex-based approach while budou uses natural language processing.