treetop 1.2.0 → 1.2.1

data/Rakefile

@@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ end
 
 gemspec = Gem::Specification.new do |s|
   s.name = "treetop"
-  s.version = "1.2.0"
+  s.version = "1.2.1"
   s.author = "Nathan Sobo"
   s.email = "nathansobo@gmail.com"
   s.homepage = "http://functionalform.blogspot.com"

data/doc/contributing_and_planned_features.markdown

@@ -1,31 +1,23 @@
 #Contributing
 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.
 
+The source code is currently stored in a git repository at <a href="http://repo.or.cz/w/treetop.git">http://repo.or.cz/w/treetop.git</a>
+
 ##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 the metagrammar 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. This became an issue fairly recently when I closed the loop on the bootstrap. Serious iteration on the metagrammar will probably necessitate a more robust testing strategy, perhaps one that relies on the Treetop gem for compiling the metagrammar under test. I haven't done this because my changes since closing the metacircular loop have been minor enough to deal with the issue, but let me know if you need help on this front.
+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.
 
-Due to shortcomings in Ruby's semantics that scope constant definitions in a block's lexical environment rather than the environment in which it is module evaluated, I was unable to use Rspec without polluting a global namespace with const definitions. Rspec has recently improved to allow specs to reside within standard Ruby classes, but I have not yet migrated the tests back. Instead, they are built on a modified version of Test::Unit that allows tests to be defined as strings. It's not ideal but it worked at the time.
-
 #What Needs to be Done
 ##Small Stuff
-* Migrate the tests back to RSpec.
 * 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.
-* Allow the root of a grammar to be dynamically set for testing purposes.
 
 ##Big Stuff
-###Avoiding Excessive Object Instantiation
-Based on some preliminary profiling work, it is pretty apparent that a large percentage of a typical parse's time is spent instantiating objects. This needs to be avoided if parsing is to be more performant.
-
-####Avoiding Failure Result Instantiation
-Currently, every parse failure instantiates a failure object. Both success and failure objects propagate an array of the furthest-advanced terminal failures encountered during the parse. These are used to give feedback to the user in the event of a parse failure as to where the most likely source of the error was located. Rather than propagate them upward in the failure objects, it would be faster to just return false in the event of failure and instead write terminal failures to a mutable data structure that is global to the parse. Even this can be done only in the event that the index of the failure is greater than or equal to the current maximal failure index. In addition to minimizing failure object instantiation, this will probably reduce the time spent sorting propagated failures.
-
 ####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.
 

data/doc/index.markdown

@@ -4,18 +4,79 @@ Treetop is a language for describing languages. Combining the elegance of Ruby w
 
 </p>
 
+    sudo gem install treetop
 
 #Intuitive Grammar Specifications
-Treetop's packrat parsers use _memoization_ to make the backtracking possible in linear time. This cuts the gordian knot of grammar design. There's no need to look ahead and no need to lex. Worry about the structure of the language, not the idiosyncrasies of the parser.
+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, define methods on the trees that Treetop automatically constructs–and write this code directly inside the grammar.
+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
-Break grammars into modules and compose them via Ruby's mixin semantics. Or combine grammars written by others in novel ways. Or extend existing grammars with your own syntactic constructs by overriding rules with access to a `super` keyword. Compositionally means your investment of time into grammar writing is secure–you can always extend and reuse your code.
+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
-First, thank you to my employer Rob Mee of Pivotal Labs for funding a substantial portion of Treetop's development. He gets it.
+
+
+<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:
 

data/doc/semantic_interpretation.markdown

@@ -128,7 +128,9 @@ Subexpressions can be given an explicit label to have an element accessor method
     rule labels
       first_letter:[a-z] rest_letters:(', ' letter:[a-z])* {
         def letters
-          [first_letter] + rest_letters.map { |comma_and_letter| comma_and_letter.letter }
+          [first_letter] + rest_letters.map do |comma_and_letter|
+            comma_and_letter.letter
+          end
         end
       }
     end

data/doc/site.rb

@@ -1,17 +1,30 @@
 require 'rubygems'
 require 'erector'
+require "#{File.dirname(__FILE__)}/sitegen"
 
 class Layout < Erector::Widget
   def render
     html do
       head do
         link :rel => "stylesheet",
-             :type => "text/css",
-             :href => "./screen.css"
+        :type => "text/css",
+        :href => "./screen.css"
+        
+        text %(
+          <script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type="text/javascript">
+          </script>
+          <script type="text/javascript">
+          _uacct = "UA-3418876-1";
+          urchinTracker();
+          </script>
+        )
       end
-      
+
       body do
         div :id => 'top' do
+          div :id => 'main_navigation' do
+            main_navigation
+          end
         end
         div :id => 'middle' do
           div :id => 'content' do
@@ -19,17 +32,22 @@ class Layout < Erector::Widget
           end
         end
         div :id => 'bottom' do
-          
+
         end
       end
-    end    
+    end
   end
-  
-  def bluecloth(path)
-    File.open(path) do |file|
-      text BlueCloth.new(file.read).to_html
+
+  def main_navigation
+    ul do
+      li { link_to "Documentation", SyntacticRecognition, Documentation }
+      li { link_to "Contribute", Contribute }
+      li { link_to "Home", Index }
     end
   end
+
+  def content
+  end
 end
 
 class Index < Layout
@@ -38,4 +56,55 @@ class Index < Layout
   end
 end
 
-puts Index.new.to_s
+class Documentation < Layout
+  abstract
+
+  def content
+    div :id => 'secondary_navigation' do
+      ul do
+        li { link_to 'Syntax', SyntacticRecognition }
+        li { link_to 'Semantics', SemanticInterpretation }
+        li { link_to 'Using In Ruby', UsingInRuby }
+        li { link_to 'Advanced Techniques', PitfallsAndAdvancedTechniques }
+      end
+    end
+    
+    div :id => 'documentation_content' do
+      documentation_content
+    end
+  end
+end
+
+class SyntacticRecognition < Documentation
+  def documentation_content
+    bluecloth "syntactic_recognition.markdown"
+  end
+end
+
+class SemanticInterpretation < Documentation
+  def documentation_content
+    bluecloth "semantic_interpretation.markdown"
+  end
+end
+
+class UsingInRuby < Documentation
+  def documentation_content
+    bluecloth "using_in_ruby.markdown"
+  end
+end
+
+class PitfallsAndAdvancedTechniques < Documentation
+  def documentation_content
+    bluecloth "pitfalls_and_advanced_techniques.markdown"
+  end
+end
+
+
+class Contribute < Layout
+  def content
+    bluecloth "contributing_and_planned_features.markdown"
+  end
+end
+
+
+Layout.generate_site

data/doc/site/contribute.html

@@ -0,0 +1,118 @@
+<html><head><link rel="stylesheet" href="./screen.css" type="text/css"></link>
+          <script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type="text/javascript">
+          </script>
+          <script type="text/javascript">
+          _uacct = "UA-3418876-1";
+          urchinTracker();
+          </script>
+        </head><body><div id="top"><div id="main_navigation"><ul><li><a href="syntactic_recognition.html">Documentation</a></li><li>Contribute</li><li><a href="index.html">Home</a></li></ul></div></div><div id="middle"><div id="content"><h1>Contributing</h1>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>The source code is currently stored in a git repository at <a href="http://repo.or.cz/w/treetop.git">http://repo.or.cz/w/treetop.git</a></p>
+
+<h2>Getting Started with the Code</h2>
+
+<p>Treetop compiler is interesting in that it is implemented in itself. Its functionality revolves around <code>metagrammar.treetop</code>, 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.</p>
+
+<p>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 <code>metagrammar.treetop</code> 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.</p>
+
+<h2>Tests</h2>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<h1>What Needs to be Done</h1>
+
+<h2>Small Stuff</h2>
+
+<ul>
+<li>Improve the <code>tt</code> command line tool to allow <code>.treetop</code> extensions to be elided in its arguments.</li>
+<li>Generate and load temp files with <code>Treetop.load</code> rather than evaluating strings to improve stack trace readability.</li>
+<li>Allow <code>do/end</code> style blocks as well as curly brace blocks. This was originally omitted because I thought it would be confusing. It probably isn't.</li>
+</ul>
+
+<h2>Big Stuff</h2>
+
+<h4>Transient Expressions</h4>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<h3>Generate Rule Implementations in C</h3>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<h3>Global Parsing State and Semantic Backtrack Triggering</h3>
+
+<p>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 <em>extrasyntactic</em> 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.</p>
+
+<p>Here is a sketch of the potential utility of such mechanisms. Consider the structure of YAML, which uses indentation to indicate block structure.</p>
+
+<pre><code>level_1:
+  level_2a:
+  level_2b:
+    level_3a:
+  level_2c:
+</code></pre>
+
+<p>Imagine a grammar like the following:</p>
+
+<pre><code>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
+</code></pre>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p></div></div><div id="bottom"></div></body></html>

data/doc/site/index.html

@@ -0,0 +1,102 @@
+<html><head><link rel="stylesheet" href="./screen.css" type="text/css"></link>
+          <script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type="text/javascript">
+          </script>
+          <script type="text/javascript">
+          _uacct = "UA-3418876-1";
+          urchinTracker();
+          </script>
+        </head><body><div id="top"><div id="main_navigation"><ul><li><a href="syntactic_recognition.html">Documentation</a></li><li><a href="contribute.html">Contribute</a></li><li>Home</li></ul></div></div><div id="middle"><div id="content"><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>
+
+<pre><code>sudo gem install treetop
+</code></pre>
+
+<h1>Intuitive Grammar Specifications</h1>
+
+<p>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 <em>lookahead assertions</em> 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:</p>
+
+<pre><code>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
+</code></pre>
+
+<h1>Syntax-Oriented Programming</h1>
+
+<p>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...</p>
+
+<pre><code>grammar Arithmetic
+  rule additive
+    multitive '+' additive {
+      def value
+        multitive.value + additive.value
+      end
+    }
+    /
+    multitive
+  end
+
+  # other rules below ...
+end
+</code></pre>
+
+<p>...or associate rules with classes of nodes you wish your parsers to instantiate upon matching a rule.</p>
+
+<pre><code>grammar Arithmetic
+  rule additive
+    multitive '+' additive &lt;AdditiveNode&gt;
+    /
+    multitive
+  end
+
+  # other rules below ...
+end
+</code></pre>
+
+<h1>Reusable, Composable Language Descriptions</h1>
+
+<p>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 <code>super</code> 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.</p>
+
+<pre><code>grammar RubyWithEmbeddedSQL
+  include SQL
+
+  rule string
+    quote sql_expression quote / super
+  end
+end
+</code></pre>
+
+<h1>Acknowledgements</h1>
+
+<p><a href="http://pivotallabs.com"><img id="pivotal_logo" src="./images/pivotal.gif"></a></p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>I'd also like to thank:</p>
+
+<ul>
+<li>Damon McCormick for several hours of pair programming.</li>
+<li>Nick Kallen for lots of well-considered feedback and a few afternoons of programming.</li>
+<li>Brian Takita for a night of pair programming.</li>
+<li>Eliot Miranda for urging me rewrite as a compiler right away rather than putting it off.</li>
+<li>Ryan Davis and Eric Hodel for hurting my code.</li>
+<li>Dav Yaginuma for kicking me into action on my idea.</li>
+<li>Bryan Ford for his seminal work on Packrat Parsers.</li>
+<li>The editors of Lambda the Ultimate, where I discovered parsing expression grammars.</li>
+</ul></div></div><div id="bottom"></div></body></html>