Published Feb 13, 2007
When writing a grammar specification that is input to a parser generator, the most natural way of describing the grammar is often ambiguous. There are two solutions: 1) rewrite the grammar to be less obvious, or 2) use precedence rules to disambiguate conflicting actions. In practice, I find myself using both approaches, according to which is least distasteful for the ambiguity at hand.
However, I have lately run into a series of bugs in the Lyken parser that are a result of the following steps: 1) disambiguate the grammar using precedences, 2) continue grammar development. What happens is that the precedence specifications added in step (1) end up being inadvertently employed to disambiguate additions made in step (2), but in many cases not as I would have chosen, were I presented with an ambiguity to resolve. The result is obscured bugs that only show up when parsing code that exercises the appropriate broken portions of the parser.
I started thinking about how to avoid these masked ambiguities, and realized that in many cases it is impossible, due to the precedence machinery provided by virtually every parser generator in existence (if there is any precedence support at all). Here is a typical set of precedence specifications as supported by YACC.
%left '+' '-' %left '*' '/'
The operator sets are listed from lowest to highest precedence so that multiplication/division has higher precedence than addition/subtraction.
For simple examples, it is hard to see what is wrong with this scheme, but for more complex grammars, there is a problem: It is impossible to declare a precedence relationship between a production and, say, addition/subtraction, without incidentally declaring a precedence relationship with every other precedence. In essence, we are stuck with a linearization of what should really be a directed acyclic graph (DAG) of precedence relationships.
Apparently, before LR parsing became the norm, there was a more limited method called “precedence parsing”. The precedence support we have in LR-family parser generators apparently was added to subsume precedence parsing, making pure precedence parsing completely obsolete. The problem is, we are stuck with a special case of precedence parsing, even though the general case was worked out and published (Gray 1973).
I have implemented DAG-based precedence specification support in my parser generator, and indeed it solves the problem described earlier. Since the DAG can be disjoint, it is possible to, for example, disambiguate a reduce/reduce conflict without any possibility of masking conflicts due to later grammar additions. Naturally, much care is still required when using precedence specifications for disambiguation, but with the DAG-based approach, at least I am no longer hobbled by an unnecessary limitation.
Gray, James N. and Michael A. Harrison (1973) Canonical Precedence Schemes. JACM 20(2), 214-234.
That is also something that has bothered me… and in my parser engine plans, I’ve also envisioned a DAG precedence approach.
Nice to see that someone’s actually done this.