Did you know ... Search Documentation:
Packs (add-ons) for SWI-Prolog

Package "pPEG"

Title:Pack to support parsing text using pPEG grammars
Rating:Not rated. Create the first rating!
Latest version:2.0.0
SHA1 sum:9697db0806673d3290c8b891ad6b54c2c97d16e5
Author:Rick Workman <ridgeworks@mac.com>
Home page:https://github.com/ridgeworks/pPEGpl
Download URL:https://github.com/ridgeworks/pPEGpl.git


No reviews. Create the first review!.

Details by download location


Pack pPEG for SWI-Prolog

Note: This is version 2 of pPEG for SWI-Prolog and has some non-upwards compatible changes from version 1. See details in Getting Started at the end of this ReadMe document.

What is PEG?

PEG is an acronym for "Parsing Expression Grammar" described in Bryan Ford's original 2004 paper "Parsing Expression Grammars: A Recognition-Based Syntactic Foundation". From the abstract:

*For decades we have been using Chomsky’s generative system of grammars, particularly context-free grammars (CFGs) and regular expressions (REs), to express the syntax of programming languages and protocols. The power of generative grammars to express ambiguity is crucial to their original purpose of modelling natural languages, but this very power makes it unnecessarily difficult both to express and to parse machine-oriented languages using CFGs. Parsing Expression Grammars (PEGs) provide an alternative, recognition-based formal foundation for describing machine-oriented syntax, which solves the ambiguity problem by not introducing ambiguity in the first place. Where CFGs express nondeterministic choice between alternatives, PEGs instead use prioritized choice. PEGs address frequently felt expressiveness limitations of CFGs and REs, simplifying syntax definitions and making it unnecessary to separate their lexical and hierarchical components. A linear-time parser can be built for any PEG, avoiding both the complexity and fickleness of LR parsers and the inefficiency of generalized CFG parsing.*

So the main difference between *PEG*s and *CFG*s is that *PEG*s do not support alternative "matches" on backtracking, hence the deterministic, linear time parsing behaviour of PEG parsers. This has two main implications as follows.

First, the "OR" operation ("`|" in most CFGs) is replaced by the *PEG* infix operator "/`" signifying a committed choice, i.e., once a choice is made, no backtracking is triggered on later failure to try any alternative choices. This means the order of the expressions in a PEG choice expression is significant. (Sound familiar?)

Secondly, repeat operators like "*", "+" and "?" are greedy (match the longest possible string) and shorter strings are not matched on backtracking. One consequence of this is that repeat expressions may require a "look-ahead guard" to prevent overly greedy matches. PEG provides the look-ahead prefix operators "&" and "!" for this purpose (among others).

What is pPEG?

[pPEG][pPEGrepo] is a member of the PEG family with the following attributes:

  • portable. A grammar written in the "pure" subset of pPEG (no extensions) is language and implementation independent. The design intent is that pPEG is relatively easy to implement in any general purpose programming language. (See A pPEG Virtual Machine).
  • simple. A pPEG grammar only recognizes the syntax of a string producing a generic tree data structure (defined by the language specific API) called a ptree which is representable in pretty much any programming language using just arrays (or lists) and strings. Application dependent semantic analysis is performed as a subsequent step using the generated trees as input.
  • directly executable. The source of a pPEG grammar is a string which is "compiled" to a pPEG grammar "object" which is used directly to parse input strings in the language specified by the grammar. This is analogous to how regular expressions are generally used but different from most formal grammar systems which generate source code for a parser in a specific target language.
  • "scannerless". The input to the parser is a sequence of characters (a string) rather than a sequence of tokens produced by a lexer.
  • extendable. While all context free grammars and some context sensitive grammars (using '&' and '!' prefix operators) can be implemented in "pure" pPEG, other grammars may require the use of extensions which are hooks into the underlying programming language. The syntax and semantics of particular extensions may be implementation dependent and generally compromise portability. For the pPEG specification see [pPEG]pPEGrepo]. An online "dingus" based on the Javascript implementation can be found [here.

A pPEG Pack for SWI-Prolog

pPEG is an add-on pack for SWI-Prolog implemented entirely in Prolog which complements the parsing capabilities of regular expressions (library(pcre)) and DCG's already available to the SWI-Prolog community. It consists of module (pPEG) with three core interface predicates: peg_compile, for constructing a parser term from the grammar source (analogous to pcre:re_compile), peg_parse, for parsing a input string in the language specified by the parser term (analogous to pcre:re_matchsub), and peg_grammar for accessing the pPEG source grammar, largely for documentation/specification purposes. (A second module, pPEGutilities, contains miscellaneous predicates that facilitate processing the results of a peg_parse operation and modules csg_pPEGxt and rexp_pPEGxt contain useful extensions.) The remainder of this section is an overview of how to use pPEG in Prolog applications; for the nitty-gritty details see the [pPEG API reference][pPEGref].

The easiest way to define a grammar is with a quasi-quoted string with syntax 'pPEG'. A simple grammar to recognize 1 or more 'x's followed by a 'y':

?- G={|pPEG||xs_y = 'x'+ 'y'|}.
G = 'Peg'([rule(xs_y, seq([rep_O(sq_O(exact, "x"), 1, -1), sq_O(exact, "y")]))], [_]).

When this is parsed by the Prolog system, the result is a grammar term that can then be used to parse text content in the language defined by the grammar (see below). Any arguments to the quasi-quoted "Syntax" term, e.g., pPEG(optimise(true)), are treated as compile options (see the [API reference][pPEGref] for details).

Another option is to define the grammar in a quasi-quoted "raw" string using library(strings) and then use peg_compile/3; this generates the same grammar term as using the pPEG quasi-quoted syntax.

And the last option is just to use a Prolog string, but you have to be cognizant of the necessary character escapes. For anything other than small test grammars, this isn't usually a good option.

Here's two ways to express a [pPEG][pPEGrepo] grammar for a quasi-quoted string, first as a pPEG grammar (no explicit compile required) and then as a quasi-quoted string which will require a call to peg_compile to create the grammar term:

qqs_grammar({|pPEG|| qq_string = '{|string||' rawstring _eos rawstring = ~_eos* _eos = '|' '}' |}).
qqs_grammar_def({|string|| qq_string = '{|string||' rawstring _eos rawstring = ~_eos* _eos = '|' '}' |}).

(Note that a quasi-quoted string cannot contain the substring "`|}`", hence the use of two literals in the _eos rule.) Using peg_compile/2 can be used to compile qqs_grammar_def to produce a grammar term equivalent to qqs_grammar:

?- qqs_grammar_def(QS), peg_compile(QS,qqs). QS = "qq_string = '{|string||' rawstring _eos\nrawstring = ~_eos*\n_eos = '|' '}'\n".

In this example, the actual grammar term is stored internally by pPEG along with its designated name 'qqs' (an atom). This name can be used to parse Prolog strings in the "qqs" language:

?- peg_parse(qqs,"{|string|| A quasi-quoted string in a normal Prolog string.\\u00A9 |}",QQSTree). QQSTree = rawstring(" A quasi-quoted string in a normal Prolog string.\\u00A9 ").

or using the pre-compiled pPEG quasi-quoted defintion:

?- qqs_grammar(QQG), peg_parse(QQG,"{|string|| A quasi-quoted string in a normal Prolog string.\\u00A9 |}",QQSTree). QQSTree = rawstring(" A quasi-quoted string in a normal Prolog string.\\u00A9 ").

The result of the parse unifies QQSTree with the ptree generated by the parsing operation. A Prolog ptree is a compound term with its functor being the rule name that matched the input and whose single argument is either the matched string (for a terminal node in the tree) or a list of *ptree*s (representing the children of a non-terminal node). In this trivial example, there is just a single rawstring terminal node containing the raw (unescaped) string. To convert it to the equivalent Prolog string with "`\\u00A9`" replaced by the copyright character requires additional "semantic processing". Perhaps the simplest way of doing this is to just use [read_term_from_atom/3][swip-readatom] to invoke the Prolog parser:

?- peg_parse(qqs,"{|string|| A quasi-quoted string in a normal Prolog string.\\u00A9 |}",rawstring(R)), atomics_to_string(['"',R,'"'],P), read_term_from_atom(P,String,[]).
R = " A quasi-quoted string in a normal Prolog string.\\u00A9 ", P = "\" A quasi-quoted string in a normal Prolog string.\\u00A9 \"", String = " A quasi-quoted string in a normal Prolog string.© ".

[swip-readatom]: https://www.swi-prolog.org/pldoc/doc_for?object=read_term_from_atom/3 This example doesn't do much that's useful other than provide a simple introductory example so let's look at a more practical example, a pPEG parser for JSON. Without explaining the details, here's the grammar which will be compiled and stored under the name 'json':

        json   = value
        value  = _ (Object / Array / string / number / lit) _
        Object = '{'_ (pair (',' _ pair)*)? '}'
        pair   = string _ ':' _ value
        Array  = '[' _ (value (',' _ value)*)? ']'
        string    = '"' _chars* '"'
        _chars  = ~[\u0000-\u001F"\]+ / '\' _esc
        _esc    = ["\/bfnrt] / 'u' [0-9a-fA-F]*4
        number = _int _frac? _exp?
        _int   = '-'? [1-9] [0-9]* / '-'? '0'
        _frac  = '.' [0-9]+
        _exp   = [eE] [+-]? [0-9]+
        lit    = 'true' / 'false' / 'null'
        _      = [ \t\n\r]*                 # optional whitespace

This grammar has all three rule types: default rules, whose names start with a lowercase letter and whose value may be either a string or a list of child nodes, anonymous rules (names start with '_') which never appear in a ptree, and explicit rules (names start with uppercase letter) whose value is always a (perhaps empty) list of children. The grammar not only specifies the language accepted by the parser but also the form of the ptree that is generated. But the rule naming conventions can never change the "language" that is recognized by the grammar. This example also demonstrates the use of a space character in double quoted literals to represent any amount of insignificant whitespace.

An example input string to be parsed:

json_test1({|string|| { "answer": 42, "mixed": [1, 2.3, "a string", true, [4, 5]], "empty": {} } |}). and, after compiling json_grammar with the label json, the (hand-formatted) result of parsing:
?- json_grammar(S), peg_compile(S,json). S = ...
?- json_test1(T), peg_parse(json,T,JSONTree). T = " \n { \"answer\": 42,\n \"mixed\": [1, 2.3, \"a string\", true, [4, 5]],\n \"empty\": {}\n }\n", JSONTree = 'Object'([ pair([string("\"answer\""), number("42") ]), pair([string("\"mixed\""), 'Array'([ number("1"), number("2.3"), string("\"a string\""), lit("true"), 'Array'([ number("4"), number("5") ]) ]) ]), pair([string("\"empty\""), 'Object'([]) ]) ]). Hand formatting for readability is a bit tedious so a predicate ptree_printstring is provided in module pPEGutilities which will generate a "pretty printed" string for output. Using it with the query above and omitting the top level variable bindings:
        ?- json_test1(T), peg_parse(json,T,JSONTree), ptree_printstring(JSONTree,"  ",Print), write(Print).
          │ ├─string "\"answer\""
          │ └─number "42"
          │ ├─string "\"mixed\""
          │ └─Array
          │   ├─number "1"
          │   ├─number "2.3"
          │   ├─string "\"a string\""
          │   ├─lit "true"
          │   └─Array
          │     ├─number "4"
          │     └─number "5"
            ├─string "\"empty\""

Note that all the terminal values are strings which may, or may not, be perfectly acceptable for the next step in the application. But writing a ptree walker is quite easy in Prolog. As an example, here's a walker that converts a JSON ptree to the classical term form produced by the JSON parser in library(http/json):

        ptree_to_json_term('Object'(Pairs),json(NameValues)) :-
        ptree_to_json_term('Array'(PList),List) :-
        ptree_to_json_term(string(String),Atom) :-
            unescape_solidus(String,String1),         % unique JSON escape
            read_term_from_atom(String1,String2,[]),  % parse to a string
            atom_string(Atom,String2).                % and convert to atom
        ptree_to_json_term(number(NumString),Num) :-
        ptree_to_json_term(lit(String), @(Atom))

        pairs_to_nameValues([pair([PName,PValue])|Members], [Name=Value|NameValues]) :-

        ptree_list_to_json_list([P|PList],[J|List]) :-

        % special case for odd \/ JSON escape
        unescape_solidus(In,Out) :-
        unescape_solidus_(In,[Pre|List]) :-
            sub_string(In,B,2,A,"\\/"), !,

The only tricky bit is the use of the internal Prolog parser (read_term_from_atom/3) to map escape sequences in JSON strings to their real character values in the Prolog strings. (Unfortunately, the JSON escape solidus ('\/') must be treated as a special case.) Now:

?- json_test1(T), peg_parse(json,T,JSONTree), ptree_to_json_term(JSONTree,JSONTerm). produces the JSONTerm value:

JSONTerm = json([answer=42,mixed=[1,2.3,'a string',@(true),[4,5]],empty=json([])]). This also isn't a particularly practical example; the JSON parser from library(http/json) works well. The intent of this section is to provide a minimal introduction to developing practical, portable grammars using a simple three step define-compile-parse process (or just define-parse when using pPEG quasi-quotations). These grammars are embedded in the host Prolog application (like regular expressions) and require no additional support tools.

<small> Aside: Don't confuse the predicate ptree_to_json_term/3 defined here with ptree_json_term/2 in pPEGutilities; the latter just produces a JSON equivalent of the Prolog <em>ptree</em>, i.e., all compound terms are converted to lists with the functor name as the first list element. </small>

Example - A Formal Grammar for SWI-Prolog Syntax

For a more extensive example, see the Examples directory for a formal specification of the SWI-Prolog syntax (current as of March, 2022), including a small semantic analyser which converts the ptree result to the corresponding Prolog terms. This has been fairly extensively tested including all files in the `swipl boot` directory and the (almost 200) top level files in the library. The biggest obstacle to its use is ensuring the the necessary operators are defined prior to parsing a file. (It's just a parser so only pre-existing operators are recognized.)

Again, this parser is not intended to be used as an alternative to the builtin parser, but having a complete, concise, and testable specification of the SWIP syntax is valuable in its own right (not to mention its intrinsic value as documentation).

Example - Semantic Labelling for Precedence Expressions

Many languages implement expressions using pre-defined operator precedences to avoid the requirement for explicit parentheses. This examples shows how to use rule naming conventions to bind precedence and associativity values to operators. The ptree_pratt/2 predicate in pPEGutilities to map a ptree to a "Pratt tree" using those labels.

pPEG Performance

If parsing text is a significant activity in the application and performance is critical, it's worth investing the time and effort in a custom parser. For most other situations, pPEG provides decent performance, typically in the range of 2-4 microseconds per character depending on the language being parsed. Usually the ability to rapidly implement a parser with a formal specification outweighs any performance penalty incurred. Even when a custom parser is justifiable, starting with a formal, and testable, grammar definition is generally a good idea.

Getting Started

If SWI-Prolog has not been installed, see downloads.

pPEG can be installed from the URL `https://github.com/ridgeworks/pPEGpl.git`. Once installed, it can be loaded with use_module/1 as in:

        ?- pack_install(pPEG,[url('https://github.com/ridgeworks/pPEGpl.git')]).

        ?- use_module(library(pPEG)).

In addition to the core pPEG module, modules csg_pPEGxt (extension supporting some context sensitive grammars), rexp_pPEGxt (extension for matching text with regular expressions), and pPEGutilities are installed in the library. See [pPEG API reference][pPEGref] for further details and examples.

##### Version 1 to Version 2 Non-upwards Comaptibility

Version 2 of pPEG for SWI-Prolog is non-upwards compatible in two significant ways. First the double quoted (implicit whitespace) syntax has been omitted. Whitespace must now be explicitly defined and called. To avoid visual "clutter" in grammars, a useful convention is to use the rule name '_' to define whitespace (replacing the custom '_space_' in version 1 grammars where applicable).

The other common use of double quotes in version 1 grammars was to define literals containing single quotes in a single entity. This must now be done using a character set. For example, "1'2" must now be expressed as `'1' ['] '2'`. (A similar technique is used for expressing a `]` in a character set.)

The other non-upwards compatible change is dropping the double escape character in literals and character sets, i.e., '\\' representing a single backslash is now just `'\'`. The only escape sequences now recognized are '\t', '\n', '\r', '\uFFFF', and '\UFFFFFFFF' (where F is any hex digit).

These changes were made to simplify the pPEG grammar and to facilitate portability of grammars between different languages. Version 1 will continue to be available here.

[pPEGrepo]: https://github.com/pcanz/pPEG [pPEGref]: https://ridgeworks.github.io/pPEGpl/pPEG_API_Guide.html

Contents of pack "pPEG"

Pack contains 16 files holding a total of 166K bytes.