Look 0 of my work involves HTML, well maybe 1-2 percent does; however, about 60% of my work involves regular expressions, grammar, lexical scanning and syntactic parsing, so it still irks me, and will irk me beyond my grave, when people say shit like ‘Don’t parse HTML/Markdown/etc with regex! Use a parser generator!’
So this is stupid, because most people know that HTML and Markdown are not the type of languages that require a push-down parser, or even a simple LL(1) recursive-descent parser! Unless by ‘parser generator’ they mean ‘lexer generator’ or ‘PEG generator’, they are wrong, or at least, partly incorrect.
Like my diabetes, they are not grammatically Type 2 (Chomsky-wise, Context-Free); rather, they are Type 3 (Chomsky-wise, Regular).
It’s preferred if you don’t do a syntax-directed lexical translation of Markdown or HTML, and it’s best if you build a tree. I learned that making Mukette and I am currently using my implementation of ASDL to build a tree. But truth is, unlike Context-Free languages, like any non-markup language, it is ENTIRELY possible to do a syntax-directed translation of HTML and Markdown, using pre-compiled, or runtime-compiled regex.
You will have to introduce states to make it a proper Automata, but even that is not required. I once did a syntax-directed translation of Markdown to HTML in AWK! With just one extra state.
I don’t remember the copypasta that was talk of the town 10 years ago, I was a kid back then (17) and I could not dig it up. But it’s a troll that has stuck with me ever since.
Maybe, just maybe, a PEG paser generator could have been what they meant. But even then, PEG generators generate a recursive-descent parser most of the times.
In fact, I dare you to use Byacc, Btacc, Bison, Racc, PYLR, ANTLR, peg(1), leg(1), PackCC or any of these LALR or LL parser generators to parse a markup language. You’ll have a very bad time, it is not impossible, it’s just an overkill.
TL;DR: Most markup languages, like HTML or Markdown, are best lexed, not parsed! Even if you wish to make a tree out of it. But for syntax-directed translations, REs would do.
Thanks.
PS: If you translate a markup language into a tree, you can translate that tree into other markup languages. That’s what Pandoc does. Pandoc is hands-down the best piece of tool I have laid my hands on.
How many combinations and levels of italics, bold and
strikethrough, combined with escaped chars like * can your program handle?How many combinations and levels of *italics*, **bold** and ~~strikethrough~~, combined with escaped chars like \* can your program handle?
So I’ll answer your question and ask a question back from anyone who can help me.
RE the nesting, I was under the impression that they can’t be combined when I made it. Then I read CommonMark’s specs and it seems like it’s possible. It would be miserable to do this with a syntax-directed translation. I used ASDL to write up a tree, and added some features to asdl(1) so they would be handled more properly. I am not sure whether I should use a parser generator for this, but the nesting can be handled by Lex’s start conditions — if I fail to do so, I may use a PEG generator.
Now my question.
I think nesting and recursion are a good case for using a push-down parser here — I will still try and find a solution before I use an LR parser.
I avoid using Yacc because I honestly have no clue how to use it with a language like Markdown.
So my thinking is, I would just use a starting condition stack with Lex (I use Flex). It’s pretty simple. Let’s use a linked list so there are no limits.
struct stack { int state; stuct stack *next, } struct stack *top, *bottom; void push ... int pop ...
(I usually use typedefs though).
So now we have a psuedo-pushdown parser. What are these called?
I am still a beginner at this but one thing that worries me is, how would I handle the tree with this method?
With Yacc or PEG parser generators, it is easy to assign a value to a reduction/closure. But with this method, Flex won’t allow me. Unless I use too many variables.
I think I may use
peg(1)
. I can even do the same stack thingy with PEG.Any help is welcome.
HTML is not even a tree (XHTML is. XML is a type 2 grammar). SGML languages like HTML are more similar to Tree-adjoining grammars.
For example
<b>This<i>is perfectly</b>valid</i> html
.btw this is the ASDL I wrote:
%{ #include "mukette.h" static Arena *ast_scratch = NULL; #define ALLOC(size) arena_alloc(ast_scratch, size) %} md_linkage = Hyperlink(md_compound? name, string url) | Image(string? alt, string path) ; md_inline = Italic(md_compound italic) | Bold(md_compound bold) | BoldItalic(md_compound bold_italic) | Strikethrough(md_compound strike_through) | InlineCode(string inline_code) | Linkage(md_linkage linkage) | RegularText(string regular_text) ; md_header_level = H1 | H2 | H3 | H4 | H5 | H6 ; md_line = Header(md_compound text, md_header_level level) | Indented(md_compound text, usize num_indents) | LinkReference(identifier name, string url, string title) | HorizontalLine ; md_compound = (md_inline* compound) ; md_table_row = (md_compound cells, size num_cell) ; md_table = (md_table_row* rows, size num_rows) ; md_ol_item = (int bullet_num, md_list_item item) ; md_ul_item = (char bullet_char, md_list_item item) ; md_list_item = TextItem(string text) | OrderedItem(md_ol_item ordered_item) | UnorderedItem(md_ul_item unordered_item) | NestedList(md_list nested_list) ; md_list = (md_list_item* items) ; md_block = Pargraph(md_compound* paragraph) | BlockQuote(md_compound* block_quote)2 | CodeListing(identifier? label, string code) | Table(md_table table) | List(md_list list) | Line(md_line line) ; markdown = (md_block* blocks) ; %% static inline void init_tree_scratch(void) { ast_scratch = arena_init(AST_ARENA_SIZE); } static inline void free_tree_scratch(void) { arena_free(ast_scratch); }
I had an easier time parsing ASDL with Yacc. I still can’t tell whether a grammar is LR, LL or RE, but I can tell that Markdown is not CFG.
I just updated ASDL: https://github.com/Chubek/ZephyrASDL
Apologies if I am too late on the documetnation. I am still trying to improve it by using it myself. I also wish to add an Ocaml target.
md_inline and md_compound use each other, and not only at the end xor the beginning of the rule, making this a non-type 3 grammar.
Sorry for the late response, i wanted to do a better response but don’t have the time for that currently.
Thanks. I actually have a parse-related question which I will post somewhere soon (as in 2-3 minute).