Any suggestions to make this code clearer, more Pythonic, or otherwise better? I'm open to changes to the design as well as the code (but probably won't drop features or error checking since everything still in it has shown worth to me).

Parsing with PEGs, or a minimal usable subset thereof.
Background at http://bford.info/packrat/

import re

def _memo(f):
    """Return a function like f but caching its results. Its arguments
    must be hashable."""
    memos = {}
    def memoized(*args):
        try: return memos[args]
        except KeyError:
            result = memos[args] = f(*args)
            return result
    return memoized

_identifier = r'[A-Za-z_]\w*'

def Parser(grammar, **actions):
    r"""Make a parsing function from a PEG grammar. You supply the
    grammar as a string of rules like "a = b c | d". All the tokens
    making up the rules must be whitespace-separated. Each token
    (besides '=' and '|') is a regex, a rule name, or an action
    name. (Possibly preceded by '!' for negation: !foo successfully
    parses when foo *fails* to parse.)

    A regex token is either /<chars>/ or any non-identifier; an
    identifier that's not a defined rule or action name is an
    error. (So, an incomplete grammar gets you a BadGrammar exception
    instead of a wrong parse.)

    Results get added by regex captures and transformed by actions.
    (Use keyword arguments to bind the action names to functions.)

    The parsing function maps a string to a results tuple or raises
    Unparsable. (It can optionally take a rule name to start from, by
    default the first in the grammar.) It doesn't necessarily match
    the whole input, just a prefix.

    >>> parse_s_expression = Parser(r'''
    ... one_expr = _ expr !.
    ... _        = \s*
    ... expr     = \( _ exprs \) _  hug
    ...          | ([^()\s]+) _
    ... exprs    = expr exprs
    ...          | ''',             hug = lambda *vals: vals)
    >>> parse_s_expression('  (hi (john mccarthy) (()))')
    (('hi', ('john', 'mccarthy'), ((),)),)
    >>> parse_s_expression('(too) (many) (exprs)')
    Traceback (most recent call last):
    Unparsable: ('one_expr', '(too) ', '(many) (exprs)')
    parts = re.split(' ('+_identifier+') += ', ' '+re.sub(r'\s', ' ', grammar))
    if not parts: raise BadGrammar("No grammar")
    if parts[0].strip(): raise BadGrammar("Missing left hand side", parts[0])
    if len(set(parts[1::2])) != len(parts[1::2]):
        raise BadGrammar("Multiply-defined rule(s)", grammar)
    rules = dict((lhs, [alt.split() for alt in (' '+rhs+' ').split(' | ')])
                 for lhs, rhs in zip(parts[1::2], parts[2::2]))
    return lambda text, rule=parts[1]: _parse(rules, actions, rule, text)

class BadGrammar(Exception): pass
class Unparsable(Exception): pass

def attempt(parse, *args, **kwargs):
    "Call a parser, but return None on failure instead of raising Unparsable."
    try: return parse(*args, **kwargs)
    except Unparsable: return None

def _parse(rules, actions, rule, text):
    # Each function takes a position pos (and maybe a values tuple
    # vals) and returns either (far, pos1, vals1) on success or (far,
    # None, ignore) on failure (where far is the rightmost position
    # reached in the attempt).

    def parse_rule(name, pos):
        farthest = pos
        for alternative in rules[name]:
            pos1, vals1 = pos, ()
            for token in alternative:
                far, pos1, vals1 = parse_token(token, pos1, vals1)
                farthest = max(farthest, far)
                if pos1 is None: break
            else: return farthest, pos1, vals1
        return farthest, None, ()

    def parse_token(token, pos, vals):
        if re.match(r'!.', token):
            _, pos1, _ = parse_token(token[1:], pos, vals)
            return pos, pos if pos1 is None else None, vals
        elif token in rules:
            far, pos1, vals1 = parse_rule(token, pos)
            return far, pos1, pos1 is not None and vals + vals1
        elif token in actions:
            f = actions[token]
            if hasattr(f, 'is_peg'): return f(text, pos, vals)
            else: return pos, pos, (f(*vals),)
            if re.match(_identifier+'$', token):
                raise BadGrammar("Missing rule", token)
            if re.match(r'/.+/$', token): token = token[1:-1]
            m = re.match(token, text[pos:])
            if m: return pos + m.end(), pos + m.end(), vals + m.groups()
            else: return pos, None, ()

    far, pos, vals = parse_rule(rule, 0)
    if pos is None: raise Unparsable(rule, text[:far], text[far:])
    else: return vals

# Some often-used actions:
def hug(*xs): return xs
def join(*strs): return ''.join(strs)

def position(text, pos, vals):
    "A peglet action: always succeed, producing the current position."
    return pos, pos, vals + (pos,)
position.is_peg = True

A particular I'm not sure about: maybe it should use the built-in SyntaxError exception? That seems to be meant for errors in Python syntax, but I'm not sure what's handiest.

A weakness: some functions use pos, vals, pos1, vals1, and while I deem this reasonable for locals related the way they are, maybe there are better names?

From https://github.com/darius/peglet


Just last week, I was wondering what you were up to lately. :-)

I've been working on nice PEG parsing for Python lately. I've written an adaptation of OMeta, named Parsley. So far I haven't implemented regex tokens.

I wrote a custom ParseError exception class. I definitely think that the builtin SyntaxError should only be used for actual-Python syntax errors.

Parser reads a bit densely to me, both because of the regexes and because of the lack of newlines after colons.

Otherwise it looks reasonable for your goals. I ended up wrapping memoization and location tracking into an InputStream object rather than passing indices around directly; this was partly because I wanted to be able to apply Parsley rules to iterables other than strings.

  • \$\begingroup\$ Hi Allen! Thanks, I've reformatted Parser a bit (at github). \$\endgroup\$ Nov 27 '12 at 0:32
  • \$\begingroup\$ I came across Parsley (and was reminded of PyMeta) after starting this -- it's on the to-read list now. The InputStream sounds like a good idea. At the moment I'm trying to figure out if a fancier library ought to be redesigned around tree parsing (which my fancier version of this can do, but as kind of an afterthought). Anyway, it tends to be more educational (if more time-consuming) to try to reinvent the wheel before studying others' and then seeing how they made it better. \$\endgroup\$ Nov 27 '12 at 0:37
  • \$\begingroup\$ I've got some prototype code for tree parsing using Parsley in development now. I'll trot it out in a few days. :) \$\endgroup\$
    – Allen
    Nov 27 '12 at 5:45

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.