Parsing K definitions

AbstractThis paper describes our approach in parsing a K definition. The difficulty of the problem is given by the nature of the K-framework, where the user can define the operational semantics of a language by inserting pieces of concrete syntax in the K code in a natural way. Our main contribution shows how to make use of SDF and the disambiguation mechanisms in the context of K-framework

ANTLR Tree Grammar Generator and Extensions

A computer program implements two extensions of ANTLR (Another Tool for Language Recognition), which is a set of software tools for translating source codes between different computing languages. ANTLR supports predicated- LL(k) lexer and parser grammars, a notation for annotating parser grammars to direct tree construction, and predicated tree grammars. [ LL(k) signifies left-right, leftmost derivation with k tokens of look-ahead, referring to certain characteristics of a grammar.] One of the extensions is a syntax for tree transformations. The other extension is the generation of tree grammars from annotated parser or input tree grammars. These extensions can simplify the process of generating source-to-source language translators and they make possible an approach, called "polyphase parsing," to translation between computing languages. The typical approach to translator development is to identify high-level semantic constructs such as "expressions," "declarations," and "definitions" as fundamental building blocks in the grammar specification used for language recognition. The polyphase approach is to lump ambiguous syntactic constructs during parsing and then disambiguate the alternatives in subsequent tree transformation passes. Polyphase parsing is believed to be useful for generating efficient recognizers for C++ and other languages that, like C++, have significant ambiguities

Parallel on-line parsing in constant time per word

An on-line parser processes each word as soon as it is typed by the user, without waiting for the end of the sentence. Thus, in an interactive system, a sentence will be parsed almost immediately after the last word has been presented.\ud \ud The complexity of an on-line parser is determined by the resources needed for the analysis of a single word, as it is assumed that previous words have been processed already. Sequential parsing algorithms like CYK or Earley need O(n2) time for the nth word. A parallel implementation in O(n) time on O(n) processors is straightforward. In this paper a novel parallel on-line parser is presented that needs O(1) time on O(n2) processors

Certified Context-Free Parsing: A formalisation of Valiant's Algorithm in Agda

Valiant (1975) has developed an algorithm for recognition of context free languages. As of today, it remains the algorithm with the best asymptotic complexity for this purpose. In this paper, we present an algebraic specification, implementation, and proof of correctness of a generalisation of Valiant's algorithm. The generalisation can be used for recognition, parsing or generic calculation of the transitive closure of upper triangular matrices. The proof is certified by the Agda proof assistant. The certification is representative of state-of-the-art methods for specification and proofs in proof assistants based on type-theory. As such, this paper can be read as a tutorial for the Agda system

Concurrent Lexicalized Dependency Parsing: The ParseTalk Model

A grammar model for concurrent, object-oriented natural language parsing is introduced. Complete lexical distribution of grammatical knowledge is achieved building upon the head-oriented notions of valency and dependency, while inheritance mechanisms are used to capture lexical generalizations. The underlying concurrent computation model relies upon the actor paradigm. We consider message passing protocols for establishing dependency relations and ambiguity handling.Comment: 90kB, 7pages Postscrip

On the Relation between Context-Free Grammars and Parsing Expression Grammars

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