Related
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've worked with the Xerox toolchain so far, which is powerful, not opensource, and a bit overkill for my current problem. Are there libraries that allow my to implement a phrase structure grammar? Preferably in ruby or lisp.
AFAIK, there's no open-source Lisp phrase structure parser available.
But since a parser is actually a black box, it's not so hard to make your application work with a parser written in any language, especially as they produce S-expressions as output. For example, with something like pfp you can just pipe your sentences as strings to it, then read and process the resulting trees. Or you can wrap a socket server around it and you'll get a distributed system :)
There's also cl-langutils, that may be helpful in some basic NLP tasks, like tokenization and, maybe, POS tagging. But overall, it's much less mature and feature rich, than the commonly used packages, like Stanford's or OpenNLP.
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 have decided to write a small interpreter as my next project, in Ruby. What knowledge/skills will I need to have to be successful?
I haven't decided on the language to interpret yet, but I am looking for something that is not a toy language, but would be relatively easy to write an interpreter for.
Thanks in advance.
You will have to learn at least:
lexical analysis (grouping characters into tokens)
parsing (grouping tokens together into structure)
abstract syntax trees (representing program structure in a data structure)
data representation (assuming your language will have variables)
an evaluation loop that "runs" your program
An excellent introduction to some of these topics can be found in the introductory text Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs. The language used in that book is Scheme, which is a robust, well-specified language that is ideally suited for your first interpreter implementation. Highly recommended.
I haven't decided on the language to interpret yet, but I am looking for
something that is not a toy language, but would be relatively easy to write an
interpreter for. Thanks in advance.
Try some dialect of Lisp like Scheme or Clojure. (Now there's an idea: Clojure-in-Ruby, which integrates with Ruby as well as Clojure does with Java.)
With Lisp, there is no need to bother with idiosyncracies of syntax, as Lisp's syntax is much closer to the abstract syntax tree.
This SICP chapter shows how to write a Lisp interpreter in Lisp (a metacircular evaluator). In my opinion this is the best place to start. Then you can move on to Lisp in Small Pieces to learn how to write advanced interpreters and compilers for Lisp. The advantage of implementing a language like Lisp (in Lisp itself!) is that you get the lexical analyzer, parser, AST, data/program representation and REPL for free. You can concentrate on the task of getting your great language working!
There is Tree top project wich can be helpful for you http://treetop.rubyforge.org/
You can checkout Ruby Draft Specification http://ruby-std.netlab.jp/
I had a similar idea a couple of days ago. LISP is by far the easiest to implement because the syntax is so simple, and the data structures that the language manipulates are the same structures that the code is written in. Hence you need only a minimal implementation, and can define the rest in terms of itself.
However, if you are trying to learn about parsing, you may want to do a more complex language with Abstract Syntax Trees, etc.
If you want to check out my (literally two days old) Java implementation of lisp, check out mylisp.googlecode.com. I'm still working on it but it is incredible how short a time it took to get the existing stuff working.
It's not sooo hard. here's a LISP interpreter in ruby and the source is so small you are supposed to copy/paste it. but are you gonna learn LISP now? hehe.
If you're just doing this for fun, make up your own, simple language and just try it. My recommendation would be something like a really simple classic BASIC (no visual basic or object oriented stuff). With line numbers, GOTO, INPUT and PRINT and that's it. You get to do the basics, and you get a better understanding of how things work.
The knowledge you'll need?
Tokenizing (turning that huge chunk of characters into something more efficiently readable, effectively splitting it up into 'words')
Parsing (going over the tokens and building a data structure from it)
Interpreting (looping over the data structure and executing each command)
And for that last one you'll also need a way to keep around variables. Usually you'd just implement a "stack", one huge block of data where you can mark off an area at the end.
It's not implemented in Lisp, but I found Write Yourself A Scheme in 48 Hours to be a very useful document while I was starting out with Haskell (though I didn't get anywhere near finishing it after 48 hours; YMMV). It also gives you a lot of insight into interpreters in general.
I can recommend this book. It discusses patterns for writing parsers and interpreters and more:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=language+implementation+patterns&x=0&y=0
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 10 years ago.
Improve this question
In my day job I, and others on my team write a lot of hardware models in Verilog-AMS, a language supported primarily by commercial vendors and a few opensource simulator projects.
One thing that would make supporting each others code more helpful would be a LINTER that would check our code for common problems and assist with enforcing a shared code formatting style.
I of course want to be able to add my own rules and, after I prove their utility to myself, promote them to the rest of the team..
I don't mind doing the work that has to be done, but of course also want to leverage the work of other existing projects.
Does having the allowed language syntax in a yacc or bison format give me a leg up?
or should I just suck each language statement into a perl string, and use pattern matching to find the things I don't like?
(most syntax and compilation errors are easily caught by the commercial tools.. but we have some of our own extentions.)
lex/flex and yacc/bison provide easy-to-use, well-understood lexer- and parser-generators, and I'd really recommend doing something like that as opposed to doing it procedurally in e.g. Perl. Regular expressions are powerful stuff for ripping apart strings with relatively-, but not totally-fixed structure. With any real programming language, the size of your state machine gets to be simply unmanageable with anything short of a Real Lexer/Parser (tm). Imagine dealing with all possible interleavings of keywords, identifiers, operators, extraneous parentheses, extraneous semicolons, and comments that are allowed in something like Verilog AMS, with regular expressions and procedural code alone.
There's no denying that there's a substantial learning curve there, but writing a grammar that you can use for flex and bison, and doing something useful on the syntax tree that comes out of bison, will be a much better use of your time than writing a ton of special-case string-processing code that's more naturally dealt with using a syntax-tree in the first place. Also, what you learn writing it this way will truly broaden your skillset in ways that writing a bunch of hacky Perl code just won't, so if you have the means, I highly recommend it ;-)
Also, if you're lazy, check out the Eclipse plugins that do syntax highlighting and basic refactoring for Verilog and VHDL. They're in an incredibly primitive state, last I checked, but they may have some of the code you're looking for, or at least a baseline piece of code to look at to better inform your approach in rolling your own.
I've written a couple verilog parsers and I would suggest PCCTS/ANTLR if your favorite programming language is C/C++/Java. There is a PCCTS/ANTLR Verilog grammar that you can start with. My favorite parser generator is Zebu which is based on Common Lisp.
Of course the big job is to specify all the linting rules. It makes sense to make some kind of language to specify the linting rules as well.
Don't underestimate the amount of work that goes into a linter. Parsing is the easy part because you have tools (bison, flex, ANTLR/PCCTS) to automate much of it.
But once you have a parse, then what? You must build a semantic tree for the design. Depending on how complicated your inputs are, you must elaborate the Verilog-AMS design (i.e. resolving parameters, unrolling generates, etc. If you use those features). And only then can you try to implement rules.
I'd seriously consider other possible solutions before writing a linter, unless the number of users and potential time savings thereby justify the development time.
In trying to find my answer, I found this on ANTLR - might be of use
If you use Java at all (and thus IDEA), the IDE's extensions for custom languages might be of use
yacc/bison definitely gives you a leg up, since good linting would require parsing the program. Regex (true regex, at least) might cover trivial cases, but it is easy to write code that the regexes don't match but are still bad style.
ANTLR looks to be an alternative path to the more common (OK I heard about them before) YACC/BISON approach, which it turns out also commonly use LEX/FLEX as a front end.
a Quick read of the FLEX man page kind of make me think It could be the framework for that regex type of idea..
Ok.. I'll let this stew a little longer, then see how quickly I can build a prototype parser in one or the other.
and a little bit longer