Your PEG work should be interesting and I plan to follow it. You made quite a number of other significant (non-PEG) points and I am aware that I still owe you responses to them. That's underway. It's taking some time because I am doing some reading for it.
best, jeffrey On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 5:12 PM <nors...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for your answer! > > I do mostly agree, PEG is not a cure-all. But to make my opinion clear > (and I do > like to think it's an informed opinion rooted in experience) neither is it > significantly worse in usability than CFGs. > > I must admit I missed that note in the footnotes. It doesn't do much for > me in > terms of nuance, honestly. It's in a reference after a phrase that reads > "PEG, > in safe use, would essentially be LL(1)". If that's the part of saying > that "PEG > has safe uses" then it isn't nuance, but rather a judgement that says that > PEG > is either dangerous or crippled (as LL(1) is). > > It all comes back to this idea that PEG is "dangerous". I'm open to > discussing > that — what I currently think is that it really means that it is > **unintuitive** > to some people (as I do explain in my answer to Leszek above). > > One of the (multiple) things that make me believe this is precisely this > reference you cited in support of "PEG, in safe use, would essentially be > LL(1)". I think this is a gross misrepresentation of the claims of the > paper. > I'd stake 99% confidence that if you'd ask the authors if the paper says or > shows that, they'd reply with an emphatic "no". > > Consider the abstract: > > > Context-Free Grammars (CFGs) and Parsing Expression Grammars (PEGs)have > > several similarities and a few differences in both their syntax and > semantics, > > but they are usually presented through formalisms that hinder a proper > > comparison. In this paper we present a new formalism for CFGs that > highlights > > the similarities and differences between them. The new formalism borrows > from > > PEGs the use of parsing expressions and the recognition-based semantics. > We > > show how one way of removing non-determinism from this formalism yields a > > formalism with the semantics of PEGs. We also prove, based on these new > > formalisms, how LL(1) grammars define the same language whether > interpreted as > > CFGs or as PEGs, and also show how strong-LL(k), right-linear, and > LL-regular > > grammars have simple language-preserving translations from CFGs to PEGs. > Once > > these classes of CFGs can be automatically translated to equivalent > PEGs, we > > can reuse classic top-down grammars in PEG-based tools. > > This essentially says that LL(1) grammars are the subset of both PEG and > CFG > that share the same behaviour. > > Hence your definition of "safe" seems to be "behaving similarly to CFGs". > > But like I said, and you said in turn, everything is entitled to their > own opinions. > > I do however think that if a sizeable portion of the parsing community > would > agree that PEG are valuable, it might be worthwhile to point out that your > opinion is in fact, an opinion that does is not consensual by any stretch. > > Similarly, why not mention some work building on PEG? In particular > left-recursion and packrat parsing. Even if you do think they build on a > flawed > base, certainly we can agree these results are very significant for those > of us > who do use PEG? > > About quips, while I don't mind them in general, they seem to me here to be > precisely an example of the "rope-pulling" that you decry. Wouldn't it be > more > high and mighty to simply list facts and publications and let people form > their > own opinion? > > Now, why do I care? I don't mind much about people being "wrong on the > internet" > (™) — that ship sailed long ago — but the idea of a parsing timeline is > exciting to me. I'd love to recommend it and advertise it, but I find the > bias > towards the end prevents me to do so. I think many people might share this > opinion. > > The way I tend to perceive "timelines" and other "histories" is as somewhat > authoritative and unbiased — at least, that's the platonic ideal. Think > about > the standard that Wikipedia tries to enforce for instance. Wikipedia does > not > only list consensus — opinions and disputes are relevant, after all — but > clearly does mark them as such. > > Do you think there is a way for the timeline to move in that direction? > > On Wednesday, February 20, 2019 at 1:53:31 AM UTC+1, Jeffrey Kegler wrote: >> >> Thanks for your kind words. In this, I'll just respond to the PEG points. >> >> That part of my timeline has caused more blowback than any other part, >> not unexpectedly. The quips are aimed, not at people like yourself who, >> while PEG optimists, know its difficulties and do not mislead others. >> Unfortunately, at the time I wrote that version of the timeline (and still >> I suspect) you are the minority of pro-PEG voices out on the Web. >> >> Many presentations of PEG present it as a "throw anything at me" >> solution. These less careful voices were the loudest and cause a lot of >> folks to waste time pushing a rope. My quips were aimed to catch the >> attention of these folks and they did their job. >> >> I've done this before, with yacc, for the same reason, and caught the >> same kind of heat. People routinely were recommending yacc for "serious >> parsing" either in ignorance or reckless disregard of the actual experience >> with it. So I did a "bovicide" series of blog posts. Nowadays I don't >> diss yacc, because it's no longer the danger to parsing newbies that it was. >> >> If you read my entry carefully, and get beyond the quips (as I am sure >> you did), you see that I *do* say there are safe uses of PEG, and in the >> footnote concede that my description in the text is "negative". I go on to >> point the reader toward the pro-PEG literature -- a literature of which the >> less careful PEG advocates are usually unaware. >> >> So to my careless reader, a warning about PEG gets across, and to my >> careful reader, I point out that, while I am more optimistic about >> Earley/Leo, there is safe use of PEG and a literature worth consulting. >> >> In fact, I think there are 5 "forever" algorithms, parsing algorihms that >> are of permanent significance, and PEG is one of them. (The other 4 are >> regular expressions, recursive descent, Earley/Leo and Sakai's algorihm, >> aka CYK). >> >> Getting to the merits, I've heard before that some find the PEG syntax >> more intuitive than BNF. Everyone is the ultimate authority on their own >> intuitions, so I won't dispute this. And you are more optimistic about >> research into PEG than I am, clearly. But as Yogi Berra says, "predictions >> are difficult, especially about the future". My timeline does not engage >> in predictions, although it certainly reflects my optimism wrt Earley/Leo. >> I do claim to be entitled to greater confidence in my predictions on the >> grounds, at 65, I am much less likely to be around if they fall flat. :-) >> >> I'll tackle the points about why the timeline includes/excludes what it >> does separately. >> >> On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 5:47 AM <nor...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> (Following up from >>> https://twitter.com/jeffreykegler/status/1097628806091816960) >>> >>> Dear Jeffrey, >>> >>> I was delighted when I found about your parsing timeline a couple of >>> months ago. >>> I'm a PhD student researching parsing myself and it's great to see >>> resources >>> like this bringing awareness to what happened in the field, and it's a >>> great >>> reference for people in the field as well. It also got me more >>> interested in >>> Earley and your own work of it, which is quite cool. >>> >>> That being said, I do have some insatisfactions about the timeline, >>> especially >>> the end of it. It's always easy to criticize, so I would like to offer >>> my help >>> instead, to see if I can contribute something useful to the timeline. >>> >>> According to me, there are two points that could use improvement. First, >>> I feel >>> top-down recursive-descent formalizations, especially PEG, are being >>> unfairly >>> dismissed. Second, it seems to me like there are quite a few new >>> developments >>> that would deserve inclusion at the end of the timeline (especially by >>> comparison to the level of details towards the start of the timeline). >>> >>> I don't pretend to have the objective truth, but the goal is to have a >>> productive conversation that can hopefully lead to improved accuracy. >>> >>> --- >>> >>> Regarding PEG, I find the whole description minus the first paragraph to >>> be >>> rather contestable and (I feel) uncharitable. >>> >>> It's entirely correct that PEG does not cover BNF. But BNF is >>> essentially a >>> notation for the CFG formalism, which PEG is not. >>> >>> It seems your main beef with PEG is the problem that has been described >>> as >>> "language hiding" or "prefix capture": the fact that a rule like `A ::= >>> a | aa` >>> will not match the input "aa". >>> >>> This is indeed an important problem of PEGs. But the way I see it, it's >>> a dual >>> to the problem of ambiguity in CFGs. Both preclude one another: PEGs are >>> unambiguous but have prefix capture, CFGs do not have prefix capture but >>> are >>> ambiguous. The detection of both issue is provably intractable >>> (statically) and >>> may be more related than we know, as a relatively similar machinery can >>> be put >>> to work to do partial detection of both ambiguity in CFGs and prefix >>> capture in >>> PEGs, cf. "Modular Syntax Demands Verification" by Sylvain Schmitz (*). >>> >>> (*) http://www.i3s.unice.fr/~mh/RR/2006/RR-06.32-S.SCHMITZ.pdf >>> >>> I have written a fair deal of both PEGs and CFGs and both seem about >>> equally >>> difficult to write. Non-general CFG formalism (LALR, LL) are much >>> harder, and so >>> are PEG tools that have no support to build left-associative parse trees. >>> >>> I also would never advise anyone not to test a grammar, whatever the >>> formalism. >>> I've certainly never written a big chunk of grammar without making a >>> mistake >>> whatever the formalism. And in practice, the overwhelming majority of >>> these >>> mistakes weren't about either prefix capture nor ambiguity. >>> >>> If your practical experience differs, I'd be interested to hear about it. >>> >>> --- >>> >>> Regarding new developments, here are a couple of ideas of the top of my >>> head. >>> The first two items of the list are not random, since those were things >>> I worked >>> on in my research (http://norswap.com/publications/) >>> >>> - Left-recursion and left-associativity handling in PEG, since it fixes >>> the >>> foremost problem (in my opinion) with PEGs >>> >>> - Context-sensitive parsing >>> >>> You already already mention monadic parsing (but do not emphasize its >>> context-sensitive properties). Another oldie that deserves to be >>> mentionned >>> are Prolog-style definite clause grammars (DCGs). >>> >>> There are some other works worth mentioning if this is a topic of >>> interest for >>> you. >>> >>> My own work in the area is essentially pushing an idea which expressed >>> in a >>> lovely manner: >>> >>> > Recursive descent does have a huge advantage, one which, despite its >>> severe >>> > limitations, will save it from obsolescence time and again. >>> Hand-written >>> > recursive descent is essentially calling subroutines. Adding custom >>> > modification to recursive descent is very straight-forward. >>> >>> But making it so that these subroutines may manipulate state in a way >>> that is >>> safe in the presence of backtracking, enabling context-sensitive >>> parsing. >>> >>> - Packrat parsing, if only because it enables O(1) parsing of PEG, a >>> class of >>> languages that may still strictly include the whole of CFG — as far as >>> I know, >>> we do not know of a simple language that can be expressed in CFG but >>> not in >>> PEG (we do know language expressible in PEG but not in CFGs). >>> >>> Note that, even if PEG does indeed include CFG, that does not imply the >>> existance of an algorithm to convert from one to the other. >>> >>> - Tackling the problem of ambiguity formally, >>> "Disambiguating Grammars with Tree Automata" >>> https://michaeldadams.org/papers/disambiguating-grammars/ >>> >>> - GLL parsing probable deserves a mention for mention for taking a >>> LL-style >>> machinery to the point of finally parsing fully general CFGs through >>> the use >>> of Tomita-style graph structured stacks >>> http://www.cs.rhul.ac.uk/research/languages/csle/GLLparsers.html >>> >>> - Similarly, and while I'm not a fan of the way this work is marketed, >>> parsing >>> using the Brzozowski derivative is certainly an interesting direction >>> in >>> parsing: http://matt.might.net/articles/parsing-with-derivatives/ >>> >>> - This might be outside the scope of your timeline, but there is also a >>> whole >>> lot of work (some quite old) on "semi-parsing", i.e. fuzzy or partial >>> parsing: >>> http://grammarware.net/text/2014/semiparsing.pdf >>> >>> --- >>> >>> There you have it. Let me know what you think, and I'm looking forward to >>> talking with you! I hope I can help the project in any capacity that I'm >>> able. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Nicolas LAURENT >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "marpa parser" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to marpa-parser...@googlegroups.com. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "marpa parser" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to marpa-parser+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "marpa parser" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to marpa-parser+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
