|
Bottom-up Parsing
In computer science, parsing reveals the grammatical structure of linear input text, as a first step in working out its meaning. Bottom-up parsing recognizes the text's lowest-level small details first, before its mid-level structures, and leaving the highest-level overall structure to last. Bottom-up Versus Top-down The bottom-up name comes from the concept of a parse tree, in which the most detailed parts are at the bottom of the upside-down tree, and larger structures composed from them are in successively higher layers, until at the top or "root" of the tree a single unit describes the entire input stream. A bottom-up parse discovers and processes that tree starting from the bottom left end, and incrementally works its way upwards and rightwards. Compilers: Principles, Techniques, and Tools (2nd Edition), by Alfred Aho, Monica Lam, Ravi Sethi, and Jeffrey Ullman, Prentice Hall 2006. A parser may act on the structure hierarchy's low, mid, and highest levels without ever creat ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Computer Science
Computer science is the study of computation, automation, and information. Computer science spans theoretical disciplines (such as algorithms, theory of computation, information theory, and automation) to Applied science, practical disciplines (including the design and implementation of Computer architecture, hardware and Computer programming, software). Computer science is generally considered an area of research, academic research and distinct from computer programming. Algorithms and data structures are central to computer science. The theory of computation concerns abstract models of computation and general classes of computational problem, problems that can be solved using them. The fields of cryptography and computer security involve studying the means for secure communication and for preventing Vulnerability (computing), security vulnerabilities. Computer graphics (computer science), Computer graphics and computational geometry address the generation of images. Progr ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Backtracking
Backtracking is a class of algorithms for finding solutions to some computational problems, notably constraint satisfaction problems, that incrementally builds candidates to the solutions, and abandons a candidate ("backtracks") as soon as it determines that the candidate cannot possibly be completed to a valid solution. The classic textbook example of the use of backtracking is the eight queens puzzle, that asks for all arrangements of eight chess queens on a standard chessboard so that no queen attacks any other. In the common backtracking approach, the partial candidates are arrangements of ''k'' queens in the first ''k'' rows of the board, all in different rows and columns. Any partial solution that contains two mutually attacking queens can be abandoned. Backtracking can be applied only for problems which admit the concept of a "partial candidate solution" and a relatively quick test of whether it can possibly be completed to a valid solution. It is useless, for example, ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Packrat Parser
In computer science, a parsing expression grammar (PEG) is a type of analytic formal grammar, i.e. it describes a formal language in terms of a set of rules for recognizing strings in the language. The formalism was introduced by Bryan Ford in 2004 and is closely related to the family of top-down parsing languages introduced in the early 1970s. Syntactically, PEGs also look similar to context-free grammars (CFGs), but they have a different interpretation: the choice operator selects the first match in PEG, while it is ambiguous in CFG. This is closer to how string recognition tends to be done in practice, e.g. by a recursive descent parser. Unlike CFGs, PEGs cannot be ambiguous; a string has exactly one valid parse tree or none. It is conjectured that there exist context-free languages that cannot be recognized by a PEG, but this is not yet proven. PEGs are well-suited to parsing computer languages (and artificial human languages such as Lojban), but not natural languages where t ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Recursive Ascent Parser
In computer science, recursive ascent parsing is a technique for implementing an LALR parser which uses mutually-recursive functions rather than tables. Thus, the parser is ''directly encoded'' in the host language similar to recursive descent. Direct encoding usually yields a parser which is faster than its table-driven equivalent for the same reason that compilation is faster than interpretation. It is also (nominally) possible to hand edit a recursive ascent parser, whereas a tabular implementation is nigh unreadable to the average human. Recursive ascent was first described by Thomas Pennello in his article in 1986. He was not intending to create a hand-editable implementation of an LR parser, but rather a maintainable and efficient parser implemented in assembly language. The technique was later expounded upon by G.H. Roberts in 1988 as well as in an article by Leermakers, Augusteijn, Kruseman Aretz in 1992 in the journal ''Theoretical Computer Science''. An extremely rea ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
CYK Algorithm
In computer science, the Cocke–Younger–Kasami algorithm (alternatively called CYK, or CKY) is a parsing algorithm for context-free grammars published by Itiroo Sakai in 1961. The algorithm is named after some of its rediscoverers: John Cocke, Daniel Younger, Tadao Kasami, and Jacob T. Schwartz. It employs bottom-up parsing and dynamic programming. The standard version of CYK operates only on context-free grammars given in Chomsky normal form (CNF). However any context-free grammar may be transformed (after convention) to a CNF grammar expressing the same language . The importance of the CYK algorithm stems from its high efficiency in certain situations. Using big ''O'' notation, the worst case running time of CYK is \mathcal\left( n^3 \cdot \left, G \ \right), where n is the length of the parsed string and \left, G \ is the size of the CNF grammar G . This makes it one of the most efficient parsing algorithms in terms of worst-case asymptotic complexity, although other ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
GLR Parser
A GLR parser (GLR standing for "Generalized LR", where L stands for "left-to-right" and R stands for "rightmost (derivation)") is an extension of an LR parser algorithm to handle non-deterministic and ambiguous grammars. The theoretical foundation was provided in a 1974 paper by Bernard Lang (along with other general Context-Free parsers such as GLL). It describes a systematic way to produce such algorithms, and provides uniform results regarding correctness proofs, complexity with respect to grammar classes, and optimization techniques. The first actual implementation of GLR was described in a 1984 paper by Masaru Tomita, it has also been referred to as a "parallel parser". Tomita presented five stages in his original work, though in practice it is the second stage that is recognized as the GLR parser. Though the algorithm has evolved since its original forms, the principles have remained intact. As shown by an earlier publication, Lang was primarily interested in more easily use ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Canonical LR Parser
In computer science, a canonical LR parser or LR(1) parser is an LR(k) parser for ''k=1'', i.e. with a single lookahead terminal. The special attribute of this parser is that any LR(k) grammar with ''k>1'' can be transformed into an LR(1) grammar. However, back-substitutions are required to reduce k and as back-substitutions increase, the grammar can quickly become large, repetitive and hard to understand. LR(k) can handle all deterministic context-free languages. In the past this LR(k) parser has been avoided because of its huge memory requirements in favor of less powerful alternatives such as the LALR and the LL(1) parser. Recently, however, a "minimal LR(1) parser" whose space requirements are close to LALR parsers, is being offered by several parser generators. Like most parsers, the LR(1) parser is automatically generated by compiler-compilers like GNU Bison, MSTA, Menhir, HYACC, LRSTAR. History In 1965 Donald Knuth invented the LR(k) parser (Left to right, Rightmost d ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Simple LR Parser
In computer science, a Simple LR or SLR parser is a type of LR parser with small parse tables and a relatively simple parser generator algorithm. As with other types of LR(1) parser, an SLR parser is quite efficient at finding the single correct bottom-up parse in a single left-to-right scan over the input stream, without guesswork or backtracking. The parser is mechanically generated from a formal grammar for the language. SLR and the more-general methods LALR parser and Canonical LR parser have identical methods and similar tables at parse time; they differ only in the mathematical grammar analysis algorithms used by the parser generator tool. SLR and LALR generators create tables of identical size and identical parser states. SLR generators accept fewer grammars than do LALR generators like yacc and Bison. Many computer languages don't readily fit the restrictions of SLR, as is. Bending the language's natural grammar into SLR grammar form requires more compromises and gra ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
LR Parser
In computer science, LR parsers are a type of bottom-up parser that analyse deterministic context-free languages in linear time. There are several variants of LR parsers: SLR parsers, LALR parsers, Canonical LR(1) parsers, Minimal LR(1) parsers, and GLR parsers. LR parsers can be generated by a parser generator from a formal grammar defining the syntax of the language to be parsed. They are widely used for the processing of computer languages. An LR parser (Left-to-right, Rightmost derivation in reverse) reads input text from left to right without backing up (this is true for most parsers), and produces a rightmost derivation in reverse: it does a bottom-up parse – not a top-down LL parse or ad-hoc parse. The name LR is often followed by a numeric qualifier, as in LR(1) or sometimes LR(''k''). To avoid backtracking or guessing, the LR parser is allowed to peek ahead at ''k'' lookahead input symbols before deciding how to parse earlier symbols. Typically ''k'' is 1 and is n ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Operator-precedence Parser
In computer science, an operator precedence parser is a bottom-up parser that interprets an operator-precedence grammar. For example, most calculators use operator precedence parsers to convert from the human-readable infix notation relying on order of operations to a format that is optimized for evaluation such as Reverse Polish notation (RPN). Edsger Dijkstra's shunting yard algorithm is commonly used to implement operator precedence parsers. Relationship to other parsers An operator-precedence parser is a simple shift-reduce parser that is capable of parsing a subset of LR(1) grammars. More precisely, the operator-precedence parser can parse all LR(1) grammars where two consecutive nonterminals and epsilon never appear in the right-hand side of any rule. Operator-precedence parsers are not used often in practice; however they do have some properties that make them useful within a larger design. First, they are simple enough to write by hand, which is not generally the ca ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Simple Precedence Parser
In computer science, a simple precedence parser is a type of bottom-up parser for context-free grammars that can be used only by simple precedence grammars. The implementation of the parser is quite similar to the generic bottom-up parser. A stack is used to store a viable prefix of a sentential form from a rightmost derivation. The symbols ⋖, ≐ and ⋗ are used to identify the pivot, and to know when to Shift or when to Reduce. Implementation * Compute the Wirth–Weber precedence relationship table for a grammar with initial symbol S. * Initialize a stack with the starting marker $. * Append an ending marker $ to the string being parsed (Input). * Until Stack equals "$ S" and Input equals "$" ** Search the table for the relationship between Top(stack) and NextToken(Input) ** if the relationship is ⋖ or ≐ *** Shift: *** Push(Stack, relationship) *** Push(Stack, NextToken(Input)) *** RemoveNextToken(Input) ** if the relationship is ⋗ *** Reduce: *** SearchProductionToRe ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
LALR Parser
In computer science, an LALR parser or Look-Ahead LR parser is a simplified version of a canonical LR parser, to parse a text according to a set of production rules specified by a formal grammar for a computer language. ("LR" means left-to-right, rightmost derivation.) The LALR parser was invented by Frank DeRemer in his 1969 PhD dissertation, ''Practical Translators for LR(k) languages'', in his treatment of the practical difficulties at that time of implementing LR(1) parsers. He showed that the LALR parser has more language recognition power than the LR(0) parser, while requiring the same number of states as the LR(0) parser for a language that can be recognized by both parsers. This makes the LALR parser a memory-efficient alternative to the LR(1) parser for languages that are LALR. It was also proven that there exist LR(1) languages that are not LALR. Despite this weakness, the power of the LALR parser is sufficient for many mainstream computer languages,''LR Parsing: Theory a ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
