Comparison of Context-Free Grammars Based on Parsing Generated Test Data

Fischer, Bernd; Lämmel, Ralf; Zaytsev, Vadim

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-28830-2_18

Cited by 17 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In general, the problem of determining whether 2 context‐free grammars are equivalent is undecidable but, in practice several techniques, have been successfully used for this purpose. ()…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In general, the problem of determining whether 2 context-free grammars are equivalent is undecidable but, in practice several techniques, have been successfully used for this purpose. 28,29 The analysis of the formulas in the dataset revealed that the majority are small and simple, but also that surprisingly large and complex formulas, with more than 50 functions or operations, exist. In terms of functionality, the majority of the formulas include at least one function or operation and almost half of them contain at least one constant.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Parsing Excel formulas: A grammar and its application on 4 large datasets

Aivaloglou

Hoepelman

Hermans

2017

J Software Evolu Process

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Spreadsheets are popular end user programming tools, especially in the industrial world. This makes them interesting research targets. However, there does not exist a reliable grammar that is concise enough to facilitate formula parsing and analysis and to support research on spreadsheet codebases. This paper presents a grammar for spreadsheet formulas that can successfully parse 99.99% of more than 8 million unique formulas extracted from 4 spreadsheet datasets. Our grammar is compatible with the spreadsheet formula language, recognizes the spreadsheet formula elements that are required for supporting spreadsheets research, and produces parse trees aimed at further manipulation and analysis. Additionally, we use the grammar to analyze the characteristics of the formulas of the 4 datasets in 3 different dimensions: complexity, functionality, and data utilization. Our results show that (1) most Excel formulas are simple, however formulas with more than 50 functions or operations exist, (2) almost all formulas use data from other cells, which is often not local, and (3) a surprising number of referring mechanisms are used by less than 1% of the formulas.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Parsing Excel formulas: A grammar and its application on 4 large datasets

Aivaloglou

Hoepelman

Hermans

2017

J Software Evolu Process

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Arguably, rule-based build systems are declarative in nature, except that they may insufficiently track dependencies so that incremental building and testing may fail to be sound or optimal. A declarative [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] approach to build management and configuration management has been proposed by Singleton and collaborators [50,9]; in particular, logic deduction (Prolog) is used to represent Make-like rules; soundness and optimality of incremental building is not addressed. The Haskell-based build tool Shake [44] incorporates dependencies that are retrieved while building.…”

Section: Declarative Build Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relationship Maintenance in Software Language Repositories

Lämmel

2017

Programming

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The context of this research is testing and building software systems and, specifically, software language repositories (SLRs), i.e., repositories with components for language processing (interpreters, translators, analyzers, transformers, pretty printers, etc.). SLRs are typically set up for developing and using metaprogramming systems, language workbenches, language definition frameworks, executable semantic frameworks, and modeling frameworks.This work is an inquiry into testing and building SLRs in a manner that the repository is seen as a collection of language-typed artifacts being related by the applications of language-typed functions or relations which serve language processing. The notion of language is used in a broad sense to include text-, tree-, and graphbased languages as well as representations based on interchange formats and also proprietary formats for serialization.The overall approach underlying this research is one of language design driven by work on a particular SLR, YAS, which features a significant number of processed languages and language processors as well as a noteworthy heterogeneity in terms of representation types and implementation languages.The knowledge gained by our research is best understood as a declarative language design for regression testing and build management; we introduce a corresponding language Ueber with an executable semantics which maintains relationships between language-typed artifacts in an SLR.The grounding of the reported research is based on the executable, logic programming-based definition of the Ueber language and its systematic application to the management of YAS which consists of hundreds of language definition and processing components (such as interpreters and transformations) for more than thirty languages (not counting different representation types) with Prolog, Haskell, Java, and Python being used as implementation languages.The importance of this work stems from its objective of helping to understand and maintain relationships in SLRs, thereby directly helping users and developers of SLRs. ACM CCS 2012

show abstract

“…The computation of such distances can be as simple as the classic Levenshtein algorithm [Lev66] or involve something more advanced like longest common subsequence [GZ05]: ultimately, we want one that puts "expr" closer to "expression" than to "abcd", but even (modifications of) much more advanced techniques such as those relying on signature-based equivalence [Zay14c] or parser-based matching [FLZ12], could be applied here as well. The adviseFreshNonterminal function is somewhat more bulky and would not add much value to the paper -an interested reader is welcome to have a look at it, as well at other programmed negotiations, in the repository of SLPS [ZLvdS + 14].…”

Section: Advantages and Usesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Negotiated Grammar Evolution.

Zaytsev¹

2014

JOT

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we study controlled adaptability of metamodel transformations. We consider one of the most rigid metamodel evolution formalisms -automated grammar transformation with operator suites, where a transformation script is built in such a way that it is essentially meant to be applicable only to one designated input grammar fragment. We propose a new model of processing unidirectional programmable grammar transformation commands, that makes them more adaptable. In the proposed method, the making of a decision of letting the transformation command fail (and thus halt the subsequent transformation steps) is taken away from the transformation engine and can be delegated to the transformation script (by specifying variability limits explicitly), to the grammar engineer (by making the transformation process interactive), or to another separate component that systematically implements the desired level of adaptability. The paper investigates two kinds of different adaptability of transformation (through tolerance and through adjustment), explains how an existing grammar transformation system was reengineered to work with negotiations, and contains examples of possible usage of this negotiated grammar transformation process.Keywords Tolerance, soft computing, grammar transformation, metamodel evolution, extreme modelling. MotivationSome metamodel transformation formalisms and instruments are more adaptable than others. One of the most rigid ones is grammar transformation with operator suites. Within this approach, a collection of well-defined transformation operators with wellunderstood semantics is provided, and those operators are supplied with arguments and the input grammar, so that the output grammar can be derived automatically. The transformation scripts are stored in the form of, in fact, partially evaluated operators, for which the arguments have already been provided, but the input grammar is not a part of such a transformation script. Thus, for example, if renameN is an operator that changes the name of one nonterminal symbol, then renameN(a, b) is a valid Vadim Zaytsev.

show abstract

Comparison of Context-Free Grammars Based on Parsing Generated Test Data

Cited by 17 publications

References 25 publications

Parsing Excel formulas: A grammar and its application on 4 large datasets

Parsing Excel formulas: A grammar and its application on 4 large datasets

Relationship Maintenance in Software Language Repositories

Negotiated Grammar Evolution.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About