You can find our experiments here: https://github.com/feuerbach/hagll
But don't set your expectations high :-)
Roman
* Paul Callaghan paulcc@gmail.com [2013-03-01 06:27:46+]
Hi
Another alternative is this Haskell library: https://github.com/paulcc/xsaiga
This is a combinator
Hi
Another alternative is this Haskell library: https://github.com/paulcc/xsaiga
This is a combinator library which is suitable for mid-scale NLP work,
so handles left recursion and (high amounts of) ambiguity to produce a
packed result (which can be decoded to a list of results if required).
It
On Sunday, 24. February 2013 16:04:11 Tillmann Rendel wrote:
Both approaches are essentially equivalent, of course: Before
considering the very same nonterminal again, we should have consumed at
least one token.
I see. Thanks
So for the laymen:
expr ::= expr + expr
is a problem, because
2013/2/26 Martin Drautzburg martin.drautzb...@web.de:
I wonder if I can enforce the nonNr property somehow, i.e. enforce the rule
will not consider the same nonterminal again without having consumed any
input.
You might be interested in this paper:
Danielsson, Nils Anders. Total parser
On Wednesday, 20. February 2013 09:59:47 Tillmann Rendel wrote:
So the grammar is:
Exp ::= Int
| Exp + Exp
My naive parser enters an infinite recursion, when I try to parse 1+2.
I do understand why:
hmm, this expression could be a plus, but then it must start with
Hi Martin,
Martin Drautzburg wrote:
Note that the left recursion is already visible in the grammar above, no
need to convert to parser combinators. The problem is that the
nonterminal Exp occurs at the left of a rule for itself.
Just a silly quick question: why isn't right-recursion a similar
* Martin Drautzburg martin.drautzb...@web.de [2013-02-24 12:31:37+0100]
Twan van Laarhoven told me that:
Left-recursion is always a problem for recursive-descend parsers.
Note that the left recursion is already visible in the grammar above, no
need to convert to parser combinators.
On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 7:09 PM, Roman Cheplyaka r...@ro-che.info wrote:
Thus, your
recursion is well-founded — you enter the recursion with the input
strictly smaller than you had in the beginning.
Perhaps you meant /productive/ corecursion? Because the definition A ::= B
A you gave is
* Kim-Ee Yeoh k...@atamo.com [2013-02-24 19:22:33+0700]
On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 7:09 PM, Roman Cheplyaka r...@ro-che.info wrote:
Thus, your
recursion is well-founded — you enter the recursion with the input
strictly smaller than you had in the beginning.
Perhaps you meant
* Kim-Ee Yeoh k...@atamo.com [2013-02-24 19:22:33+0700]
On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 7:09 PM, Roman Cheplyaka r...@ro-che.info wrote:
Thus, your
recursion is well-founded — you enter the recursion with the input
strictly smaller than you had in the beginning.
Perhaps you meant
On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 7:47 PM, Roman Cheplyaka r...@ro-che.info wrote:
Or perhaps you meant that the production itself, when interpreted as a
definition, is corecursive?
I was merely thrown off by your mention of well-founded and the assertion
that you're left with a strictly smaller input.
* Kim-Ee Yeoh k...@atamo.com [2013-02-24 19:56:13+0700]
I was merely thrown off by your mention of well-founded and the assertion
that you're left with a strictly smaller input. I don't see any of this.
It may become more obvious if you try to write two recursive descent
parsers (as recursive
On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Roman Cheplyaka r...@ro-che.info wrote:
It may become more obvious if you try to write two recursive descent
parsers (as recursive functions) which parse a left-recursive and a
non-left-recursive grammars, and see in which case the recursion is
well-founded
On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 6:31 AM, Martin Drautzburg martin.drautzb...@web.de
wrote:
Just a silly quick question: why isn't right-recursion a similar problem?
Very roughly:
Left recursion is: let foo n = n + foo n in ...
Right recursion is: let foo 1 = 1; foo n = n + foo (n - 1) in ...
In
Hi,
Kim-Ee Yeoh wrote:
Perhaps you meant /productive/ corecursion? Because the definition A
::= B A you gave is codata.
If you write a recursive descent parser, it takes the token stream as an
input and consumes some of this input. For example, the parser could
return an integer that says
On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 10:04 PM, Tillmann Rendel
ren...@informatik.uni-marburg.de wrote:
The recursion is well-founded if (drop n1 text) is smaller then text. So
we have two cases, as Roman wrote:
If the language defined by B contains the empty string, then n1 can be 0,
so the recursion is
On 2/24/13 7:56 AM, Kim-Ee Yeoh wrote:
On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 7:47 PM, Roman Cheplyaka r...@ro-che.info wrote:
Or perhaps you meant that the production itself, when interpreted as a
definition, is corecursive?
I was merely thrown off by your mention of well-founded and the assertion
that
As mentioned before, the way to handle this specific problem is to use either
the pChainl or pChainr parser combinators, as e.g. found on:
http://hackage.haskell.org/packages/archive/uu-parsinglib/2.7.4.1/doc/html/Text-ParserCombinators-UU-Derived.html
and many similar libraries. So one can
Did you see expression parser in parsec
packagehttp://hackage.haskell.org/packages/archive/parsec/3.1.3/doc/html/Text-Parsec-Expr.html?
Is it not enough?
2013/2/20 Martin Drautzburg martin.drautzb...@web.de
Hello all,
this was previously asked on haskell-beginners, but only partially
Hi,
Martin Drautzburg wrote:
As an exercise I am writing a parser roughly following the expamples in Graham
Hutton's book. The language contains things like:
data Exp = Lit Int -- literal integer
| Plus Exp Exp
So the grammar is:
Exp ::= Int
| Exp + Exp
My naive parser
* Tillmann Rendel ren...@informatik.uni-marburg.de [2013-02-20 09:59:47+0100]
One way to fix this problem is to refactor the grammar in order to
avoid left recursion. So let's distinguish expressions that can
start with expressions and expressions that cannot start with
expressions:
[...]
Hi,
Roman Cheplyaka wrote:
Another workaround is to use memoization of some sort — see e.g. GLL
(Generalized LL) parsing.
Is there a GLL parser combinator library for Haskell? I know about the
gll-combinators for Scala, but havn't seen anything for Haskell.
Bonus points for providing the
* Tillmann Rendel ren...@informatik.uni-marburg.de [2013-02-20 12:39:35+0100]
Hi,
Roman Cheplyaka wrote:
Another workaround is to use memoization of some sort — see e.g. GLL
(Generalized LL) parsing.
Is there a GLL parser combinator library for Haskell? I know about
the gll-combinators
All,
Many (but not all) of the parsing algorithms that support left
recursion cannot be implemented in Haskell using the standard
representation of recursion in parser combinators. The problem
can be avoided in Scala because it has imperative features like
referential identity and/or mutable
More primitively, Parsec and its predecessor Hutton-Meijer provide the
chainl/chainr combinators, these automatically remove left recursion
within the parser - i.e. you don't have to rewrite the grammar.
On 20 February 2013 08:19, Dmitry Olshansky olshansk...@gmail.com wrote:
Did you see
Thank you very much.
To clarify: I am not in need of a parser, I just wanted to understand why left
recursion is an issue (that was easy) and what techniques help to circumvent
the problem. So your answer was spot-on (though I haven't implemented it yet)
On Wednesday, 20. February 2013
Hello all,
this was previously asked on haskell-beginners, but only partially answered.
As an exercise I am writing a parser roughly following the expamples in Graham
Hutton's book. The language contains things like:
data Exp = Lit Int -- literal integer
| Plus Exp Exp
My naive
* Martin Drautzburg martin.drautzb...@web.de [2013-02-20 08:13:16+0100]
I do know for sure, that it is possible to parse (1+2)+3 (ghci does it just
fine). But I seem to be missing a trick.
Can anyone shed some light on this?
The trick in this case is that ghci doesn't use a recursive
28 matches
Mail list logo
