mail 1.3.3 → 1.3.4

data/lib/vendor/treetop-1.4.3/bin/tt

@@ -0,0 +1,112 @@
+#!/usr/bin/env ruby
+require 'optparse'
+require 'rubygems'
+require 'treetop'
+
+$LOAD_PATH.unshift(File.expand_path(File.dirname(__FILE__) + "/../lib"))
+require 'treetop'
+require 'treetop/version'
+
+options = {}
+parser = OptionParser.new do |opts|
+  exts = Treetop::VALID_GRAMMAR_EXT.collect { |i| '.' + i }
+
+  opts.banner = "Treetop Parsing Expression Grammar (PEG) Comand Line Compiler"
+  opts.define_head "Usage: tt [options] grammar_file[#{exts.join('|')}] ..."
+  opts.separator ''
+  opts.separator 'Examples:'
+  opts.separator '  tt foo.tt               # 1 grammar -> 1 parser source'
+  opts.separator '  tt foo bar.treetop      # 2 grammars -> 2 separate parsers'
+  opts.separator '  tt -o alt_name.rb foo   # alternately named output file'
+  opts.separator ''
+  opts.separator ''
+  opts.separator 'NOTE: while treetop grammar files *must* have one of the following'
+  opts.separator 'filename extensions, the extension name is not required when calling'
+  opts.separator 'the compiler with grammar file names.'
+  opts.separator ''
+  opts.separator "  Valid extensions: #{exts.join(', ')}"
+  opts.separator ''
+  opts.separator ''
+  opts.separator 'Options:'
+
+  opts.on('-o', '--output FILENAME', 'Write parser source to FILENAME') do |fn|
+    options[:out_file] = fn
+  end
+
+  opts.on('-f', '--force', 'Overwrite existing output file(s)') do
+    options[:force] = true
+  end
+
+  opts.on_tail('-v', '--version', 'Show Treetop version') do
+    puts "Treetop v#{Treetop::VERSION::STRING}"
+    exit
+  end
+
+  opts.on_tail('-h', '--help', 'Show this help message') do
+    puts opts
+    exit
+  end
+
+end
+file_list = parser.parse!
+
+# check options and arg constraints
+if file_list.empty? || (options[:out_file] && file_list.size > 1)
+  puts parser
+  exit 1
+end
+
+def grammar_exist?(filename)
+  if File.extname(filename).empty?
+    Treetop::VALID_GRAMMAR_EXT.each do |ext|
+      fn_ext = "#{filename}.#{ext}"
+      return true if File.exist?(fn_ext) && !File.zero?(fn_ext)
+    end
+  end
+  File.exist?(filename) && !File.zero?(filename)
+end
+
+def full_grammar_filename(filename)
+  return filename if !File.extname(filename).empty?
+  Treetop::VALID_GRAMMAR_EXT.each do |ext|
+    fn_ext = "#{filename}.#{ext}"
+    return fn_ext if File.exist?(fn_ext) && !File.zero?(fn_ext)
+  end
+end
+
+def protect_output?(filename, forced=false)
+  if !forced and
+      File.exist?(filename) and
+      (l=File.open(filename) { |f| f.gets rescue "" }) != Treetop::Compiler::AUTOGENERATED
+    puts "ERROR: '#{filename}' output already exists; skipping compilation...\n"
+    return true
+  end
+  false
+end
+
+compiler = Treetop::Compiler::GrammarCompiler.new
+
+while !file_list.empty?
+  treetop_file = file_list.shift
+
+  # handle nonexistent and existent grammar files mixed together
+  if !grammar_exist?(treetop_file)
+    puts "ERROR: input grammar file '#{treetop_file}' does not exist; continuing...\n"
+    next
+  end
+
+  # try to compile
+  treetop_file = full_grammar_filename(treetop_file)
+  std_output_file = treetop_file.gsub(Treetop::VALID_GRAMMAR_EXT_REGEXP, '.rb')
+
+  if options[:out_file]
+    # explicit output file name option; never overwrite unless forced
+    next if protect_output?(options[:out_file], options[:force])
+    compiler.compile(treetop_file, options[:out_file])
+  else
+    # compile one input file from input file list option; never overwrite unless forced
+    next if protect_output?(std_output_file, options[:force])
+    compiler.compile(treetop_file)
+  end
+
+end

data/lib/vendor/treetop-1.4.3/doc/contributing_and_planned_features.markdown

@@ -0,0 +1,103 @@
+#Google Group
+I've created a <a href="http://groups.google.com/group/treetop-dev">Google Group</a> as a better place to organize discussion and development.
+treetop-dev@google-groups.com
+
+#Contributing
+Visit <a href="http://github.com/nathansobo/treetop/tree/master">the Treetop repository page on GitHub</a> in your browser for more information about checking out the source code.
+
+I like to try Rubinius's policy regarding commit rights. If you submit one patch worth integrating, I'll give you commit rights. We'll see how this goes, but I think it's a good policy.
+
+
+##Getting Started with the Code
+Treetop compiler is interesting in that it is implemented in itself. Its functionality revolves around `metagrammar.treetop`, which specifies the grammar for Treetop grammars. I took a hybrid approach with regard to definition of methods on syntax nodes in the metagrammar. Methods that are more syntactic in nature, like those that provide access to elements of the syntax tree, are often defined inline, directly in the grammar. More semantic methods are defined in custom node classes.
+
+Iterating on the metagrammar is tricky. The current testing strategy uses the last stable version of Treetop to parse the version under test. Then the version under test is used to parse and functionally test the various pieces of syntax it should recognize and translate to Ruby. As you change `metagrammar.treetop` and its associated node classes, note that the node classes you are changing are also used to support the previous stable version of the metagrammar, so must be kept backward compatible until such time as a new stable version can be produced to replace it.
+
+##Tests
+Most of the compiler's tests are functional in nature. The grammar under test is used to parse and compile piece of sample code. Then I attempt to parse input with the compiled output and test its results.
+
+#What Needs to be Done
+##Small Stuff
+* Improve the `tt` command line tool to allow `.treetop` extensions to be elided in its arguments.
+* Generate and load temp files with `Treetop.load` rather than evaluating strings to improve stack trace readability.
+* Allow `do/end` style blocks as well as curly brace blocks. This was originally omitted because I thought it would be confusing. It probably isn't.
+
+##Big Stuff
+####Transient Expressions
+Currently, every parsing expression instantiates a syntax node. This includes even very simple parsing expressions, like single characters. It is probably unnecessary for every single expression in the parse to correspond to its own syntax node, so much savings could be garnered from a transient declaration that instructs the parser only to attempt a match without instantiating nodes.
+
+###Generate Rule Implementations in C
+Parsing expressions are currently compiled into simple Ruby source code that comprises the body of parsing rules, which are translated into Ruby methods. The generator could produce C instead of Ruby in the body of these method implementations.
+
+###Global Parsing State and Semantic Backtrack Triggering
+Some programming language grammars are not entirely context-free, requiring that global state dictate the behavior of the parser in certain circumstances. Treetop does not currently expose explicit parser control to the grammar writer, and instead automatically constructs the syntax tree for them. A means of semantic parser control compatible with this approach would involve callback methods defined on parsing nodes. Each time a node is successfully parsed it will be given an opportunity to set global state and optionally trigger a parse failure on _extrasyntactic_ grounds. Nodes will probably need to define an additional method that undoes their changes to global state when there is a parse failure and they are backtracked.
+
+Here is a sketch of the potential utility of such mechanisms. Consider the structure of YAML, which uses indentation to indicate block structure.
+
+    level_1:
+      level_2a:
+      level_2b:
+        level_3a:
+      level_2c:    
+
+Imagine a grammar like the following:
+
+    rule yaml_element
+      name ':' block
+      /
+      name ':' value
+    end
+    
+    rule block
+      indent yaml_elements outdent
+    end
+
+    rule yaml_elements
+      yaml_element (samedent yaml_element)*
+    end
+    
+    rule samedent
+      newline spaces {
+        def after_success(parser_state)
+          spaces.length == parser_state.indent_level
+        end
+      }
+    end
+    
+    rule indent
+      newline spaces {
+        def after_success(parser_state)
+          if spaces.length == parser_state.indent_level + 2
+            parser_state.indent_level += 2
+            true
+          else
+            false # fail the parse on extrasyntactic grounds
+          end
+        end
+      
+        def undo_success(parser_state)
+          parser_state.indent_level -= 2
+        end
+      }
+    end
+    
+    rule outdent
+      newline spaces {
+        def after_success(parser_state)
+          if spaces.length == parser_state.indent_level - 2
+            parser_state.indent_level -= 2
+            true
+          else
+            false # fail the parse on extrasyntactic grounds
+          end
+        end
+      
+        def undo_success(parser_state)
+          parser_state.indent_level += 2
+        end
+      }
+    end
+
+In this case a block will be detected only if a change in indentation warrants it. Note that this change in the state of indentation must be undone if a subsequent failure causes this node not to ultimately be incorporated into a successful result.
+
+I am by no means sure that the above sketch is free of problems, or even that this overall strategy is sound, but it seems like a promising path.

data/lib/vendor/treetop-1.4.3/doc/grammar_composition.markdown

@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
+#Grammar Composition
+A unique property of parsing expression grammars is that they are _closed under composition_. This means that when you compose two grammars they yield another grammar that can be composed yet again. This is a radical departure from parsing frameworks require on lexical scanning, which makes compositionally impossible. Treetop's facilities for composition are built upon those of Ruby.
+
+##The Mapping of Treetop Constructs to Ruby Constructs
+When Treetop compiles a grammar definition, it produces a module and a class. The module contains methods implementing all of the rules defined in the grammar. The generated class is a subclass of Treetop::Runtime::CompiledParser and includes the module. For example:
+
+    grammar Foo
+      ...
+    end
+    
+results in a Ruby module named `Foo` and a Ruby class named `FooParser` that `include`s the `Foo` module.
+
+##Using Mixin Semantics to Compose Grammars
+Because grammars are just modules, they can be mixed into one another. This enables grammars to share rules.
+
+    grammar A
+      rule a
+        'a'
+      end
+    end
+    
+    grammar B
+      include A
+    
+      rule ab
+        a 'b'
+      end
+    end
+    
+Grammar `B` above references rule `a` defined in a separate grammar that it includes. Because module inclusion places modules in the ancestor chain, rules may also be overridden with the use of the `super` keyword accessing the overridden rule.
+
+    grammar A
+      rule a
+        'a'
+      end
+    end
+
+    grammar B
+      include A
+
+      rule a
+        super / 'b'
+      end
+    end
+
+Now rule `a` in grammar `B` matches either `'a'` or `'b'`.
+
+##Motivation
+Imagine a grammar for Ruby that took account of SQL queries embedded in strings within the language. That could be achieved by combining two existing grammars.
+
+    grammar RubyPlusSQL
+      include Ruby
+      include SQL
+      
+      rule expression
+        ruby_expression
+      end
+      
+      rule ruby_string
+        ruby_quote sql_expression ruby_quote / ruby_string
+      end
+    end
+    
+##Work to be Done
+It has become clear that the include facility in grammars would be more useful if it had the ability to name prefix all rules from the included grammar to avoid collision. This is a planned but currently unimplemented feature.

data/lib/vendor/treetop-1.4.3/doc/index.markdown

@@ -0,0 +1,90 @@
+<p class="intro_text">
+	
+Treetop is a language for describing languages. Combining the elegance of Ruby with cutting-edge <em>parsing expression grammars</em>, it helps you analyze syntax with revolutionarily ease.	
+
+</p>
+
+    sudo gem install treetop
+
+#Intuitive Grammar Specifications
+Parsing expression grammars (PEGs) are simple to write and easy to maintain. They are a simple but powerful generalization of regular expressions that are easier to work with than the LALR or LR-1 grammars of traditional parser generators. There's no need for a tokenization phase, and _lookahead assertions_ can be used for a limited degree of context-sensitivity. Here's an extremely simple Treetop grammar that matches a subset of arithmetic, respecting operator precedence:
+
+    grammar Arithmetic
+      rule additive
+        multitive '+' additive / multitive
+      end
+      
+      rule multitive
+        primary '*' multitive / primary
+      end
+      
+      rule primary
+        '(' additive ')' / number
+      end
+      
+      rule number
+        [1-9] [0-9]*
+      end
+    end
+  
+
+#Syntax-Oriented Programming
+Rather than implementing semantic actions that construct parse trees, Treetop lets you define methods on trees that it constructs for you automatically. You can define these methods directly within the grammar...
+
+    grammar Arithmetic
+      rule additive
+        multitive '+' additive {
+          def value
+            multitive.value + additive.value
+          end
+        }
+        /
+        multitive
+      end
+      
+      # other rules below ...
+    end
+    
+...or associate rules with classes of nodes you wish your parsers to instantiate upon matching a rule.
+
+    grammar Arithmetic
+      rule additive
+        multitive '+' additive <AdditiveNode>
+        /
+        multitive
+      end
+      
+      # other rules below ...
+    end
+
+
+#Reusable, Composable Language Descriptions
+Because PEGs are closed under composition, Treetop grammars can be treated like Ruby modules. You can mix them into one another and override rules with access to the `super` keyword. You can break large grammars down into coherent units or make your language's syntax modular. This is especially useful if you want other programmers to be able to reuse your work.
+
+    grammar RubyWithEmbeddedSQL
+      include SQL
+      
+      rule string
+        quote sql_expression quote / super
+      end
+    end
+
+
+#Acknowledgements
+
+
+<a href="http://pivotallabs.com"><img id="pivotal_logo" src="./images/pivotal.gif"></a>
+
+First, thank you to my employer Rob Mee of <a href="http://pivotallabs.com"/>Pivotal Labs</a> for funding a substantial portion of Treetop's development. He gets it.
+
+
+I'd also like to thank:
+
+* Damon McCormick for several hours of pair programming.
+* Nick Kallen for lots of well-considered feedback and a few afternoons of programming.
+* Brian Takita for a night of pair programming.
+* Eliot Miranda for urging me rewrite as a compiler right away rather than putting it off.
+* Ryan Davis and Eric Hodel for hurting my code.
+* Dav Yaginuma for kicking me into action on my idea.
+* Bryan Ford for his seminal work on Packrat Parsers.
+* The editors of Lambda the Ultimate, where I discovered parsing expression grammars.

data/lib/vendor/treetop-1.4.3/doc/pitfalls_and_advanced_techniques.markdown

@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
+#Pitfalls
+##Left Recursion
+An weakness shared by all recursive descent parsers is the inability to parse left-recursive rules. Consider the following rule:
+
+    rule left_recursive
+      left_recursive 'a' / 'a'
+    end
+    
+Logically it should match a list of 'a' characters. But it never consumes anything, because attempting to recognize `left_recursive` begins by attempting to recognize `left_recursive`, and so goes an infinite recursion. There's always a way to eliminate these types of structures from your grammar. There's a mechanistic transformation called _left factorization_ that can eliminate it, but it isn't always pretty, especially in combination with automatically constructed syntax trees. So far, I have found more thoughtful ways around the problem. For instance, in the interpreter example I interpret inherently left-recursive function application right recursively in syntax, then correct the directionality in my semantic interpretation. You may have to be clever.
+
+#Advanced Techniques
+Here are a few interesting problems I've encountered. I figure sharing them may give you insight into how these types of issues are addressed with the tools of parsing expressions.
+
+##Matching a String
+
+    rule string
+      '"' (!'"' . / '\"')* '"'
+    end
+
+This expression says: Match a quote, then zero or more of any character but a quote or an escaped quote followed by a quote. Lookahead assertions are essential for these types of problems.
+
+##Matching Nested Structures With Non-Unique Delimeters
+Say I want to parse a diabolical wiki syntax in which the following interpretations apply.
+
+    ** *hello* ** --> <strong><em>hello</em></strong>
+    * **hello** * --> <em><strong>hello</strong></em>
+
+    rule strong
+      '**' (em / !'*' . / '\*')+ '**'
+    end
+    
+    rule em
+      '**' (strong / !'*' . / '\*')+ '**'    
+    end
+    
+Emphasized text is allowed within strong text by virtue of `em` being the first alternative. Since `em` will only successfully parse if a matching `*` is found, it is permitted, but other than that, no `*` characters are allowed unless they are escaped.
+
+##Matching a Keyword But Not Words Prefixed Therewith
+Say I want to consider a given string a characters only when it occurs in isolation. Lets use the `end` keyword as an example. We don't want the prefix of `'enders_game'` to be considered a keyword. A naiive implementation might be the following.
+
+    rule end_keyword
+      'end' &space
+    end
+    
+This says that `'end'` must be followed by a space, but this space is not consumed as part of the matching of `keyword`. This works in most cases, but is actually incorrect. What if `end` occurs at the end of the buffer? In that case, it occurs in isolation but will not match the above expression. What we really mean is that `'end'` cannot be followed by a _non-space_ character.
+
+    rule end_keyword
+      'end' !(!' ' .)
+    end
+    
+In general, when the syntax gets tough, it helps to focus on what you really mean. A keyword is a character not followed by another character that isn't a space.

data/lib/vendor/treetop-1.4.3/doc/semantic_interpretation.markdown

@@ -0,0 +1,189 @@
+#Semantic Interpretation
+Lets use the below grammar as an example. It describes parentheses wrapping a single character to an arbitrary depth.
+
+    grammar ParenLanguage
+      rule parenthesized_letter
+        '(' parenthesized_letter ')'
+        /
+        [a-z]
+      end
+    end
+
+Matches:
+
+* `'a'`
+* `'(a)'`
+* `'((a))'`
+* etc.
+
+
+Output from a parser for this grammar looks like this:
+
+![Tree Returned By ParenLanguageParser](./images/paren_language_output.png)
+
+This is a parse tree whose nodes are instances of `Treetop::Runtime::SyntaxNode`. What if we could define methods on these node objects? We would then have an object-oriented program whose structure corresponded to the structure of our language. Treetop provides two techniques for doing just this.
+
+##Associating Methods with Node-Instantiating Expressions
+Sequences and all types of terminals are node-instantiating expressions. When they match, they create instances of `Treetop::Runtime::SyntaxNode`. Methods can be added to these nodes in the following ways:
+
+###Inline Method Definition
+Methods can be added to the nodes instantiated by the successful match of an expression
+
+    grammar ParenLanguage
+      rule parenthesized_letter
+        '(' parenthesized_letter ')' {
+          def depth
+            parenthesized_letter.depth + 1
+          end
+        }
+        /
+        [a-z] {
+          def depth
+            0
+          end
+        }
+      end
+    end
+
+Note that each alternative expression is followed by a block containing a method definition. A `depth` method is defined on both expressions. The recursive `depth` method defined in the block following the first expression determines the depth of the nested parentheses and adds one to it. The base case is implemented in the block following the second expression; a single character has a depth of 0.
+
+
+###Custom `SyntaxNode` Subclass Declarations
+You can instruct the parser to instantiate a custom subclass of Treetop::Runtime::SyntaxNode for an expression by following it by the name of that class enclosed in angle brackets (`<>`). The above inline method definitions could have been moved out into a single class like so.
+
+    # in .treetop file
+    grammar ParenLanguage
+      rule parenthesized_letter
+        '(' parenthesized_letter ')' <ParenNode>
+        /
+        [a-z] <ParenNode>
+      end
+    end
+
+    # in separate .rb file
+    class ParenNode < Treetop::Runtime::SyntaxNode
+      def depth
+        if nonterminal?
+          parenthesized_letter.depth + 1
+        else
+          0
+        end
+      end
+    end
+
+##Automatic Extension of Results
+Nonterminal and ordered choice expressions do not instantiate new nodes, but rather pass through nodes that are instantiated by other expressions. They can extend nodes they propagate with anonymous or declared modules, using similar constructs used with expressions that instantiate their own syntax nodes.
+
+###Extending a Propagated Node with an Anonymous Module
+    rule parenthesized_letter
+      ('(' parenthesized_letter ')' / [a-z]) {
+        def depth
+          if nonterminal?
+            parenthesized_letter.depth + 1
+          else
+            0
+          end
+        end
+      }
+    end
+
+The parenthesized choice above can result in a node matching either of the two choices. Than node will be extended with methods defined in the subsequent block. Note that a choice must always be parenthesized to be associated with a following block.
+
+###Extending A Propagated Node with a Declared Module
+    # in .treetop file
+    rule parenthesized_letter
+      ('(' parenthesized_letter ')' / [a-z]) <ParenNode>
+    end
+    
+    # in separate .rb file
+    module ParenNode
+      def depth
+        if nonterminal?
+          parenthesized_letter.depth + 1
+        else
+          0
+        end
+      end
+    end
+
+Here the result is extended with the `ParenNode` module. Note the previous example for node-instantiating expressions, the constant in the declaration must be a module because the result is extended with it.
+
+##Automatically-Defined Element Accessor Methods
+###Default Accessors
+Nodes instantiated upon the matching of sequences have methods automatically defined for any nonterminals in the sequence.
+
+    rule abc
+      a b c {
+        def to_s
+          a.to_s + b.to_s + c.to_s
+        end
+      }
+    end
+
+In the above code, the `to_s` method calls automatically-defined element accessors for the nodes returned by parsing nonterminals `a`, `b`, and `c`. 
+
+###Labels
+Subexpressions can be given an explicit label to have an element accessor method defined for them. This is useful in cases of ambiguity between two references to the same nonterminal or when you need to access an unnamed subexpression.
+
+    rule labels
+      first_letter:[a-z] rest_letters:(', ' letter:[a-z])* {
+        def letters
+          [first_letter] + rest_letters.map do |comma_and_letter|
+            comma_and_letter.letter
+          end
+        end
+      }
+    end
+
+The above grammar uses label-derived accessors to determine the letters in a comma-delimited list of letters. The labeled expressions _could_ have been extracted to their own rules, but if they aren't used elsewhere, labels still enable them to be referenced by a name within the expression's methods.
+
+###Overriding Element Accessors
+The module containing automatically defined element accessor methods is an ancestor of the module in which you define your own methods, meaning you can override them with access to the `super` keyword. Here's an example of how this fact can improve the readability of the example above.
+
+    rule labels
+      first_letter:[a-z] rest_letters:(', ' letter:[a-z])* {
+        def letters
+          [first_letter] + rest_letters
+        end
+        
+        def rest_letters
+          super.map { |comma_and_letter| comma_and_letter.letter }
+        end
+      }
+    end
+
+
+##Methods Available on `Treetop::Runtime::SyntaxNode`
+
+<table>
+  <tr>
+    <td>
+      <code>terminal?</code>
+    </td>
+    <td>
+      Was this node produced by the matching of a terminal symbol?
+    </td>
+  </tr>
+  <tr>
+    <td>
+      <code>nonterminal?</code>
+    </td>
+    <td>
+      Was this node produced by the matching of a nonterminal symbol?
+    </td>
+  <tr>
+    <td>
+      <code>text_value</code>
+    </td>
+    <td>
+      The substring of the input represented by this node.
+    </td>
+  <tr>
+    <td>
+      <code>elements</code>
+    </td>
+    <td>
+      Available only on nonterminal nodes, returns the nodes parsed by the elements of the matched sequence.
+    </td>
+  </tr>
+</table>