Indentation-sensitive parsing for Parsec

Adams, Michael D.; Ağacan, Ömer S.

doi:10.1145/2775050.2633369

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In order to rapidly build a prototype, we consciously decided to take advantage of a number of existing technologies. The current prototype takes advantage of the indentation sensitive parsing framework of Adams and Agacan [3], the "type-inference-in-context" technique of Gundry et al [17], and the existing implementation of Shonky [41].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Much like Haskell, in order to aid readability, the concrete syntax of Frank is indentation sensitive (though we do not explicitly spell out the details in the paper). In order to implement indentation sensitivity, Adams and Agacan [3] introduce an extension to parsing frameworks based on parsing expression grammars. Such grammars provide a formal basis for the Parsec [31] and Trifecta [28] parser combinator Haskell libraries.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Do be do be do

LindleySam¹,

McBrideConor²,

McLaughlinCraig³

2017

SIGPLAN Not.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We explore the design and implementation of Frank, a strict functional programming language with a bidirectional effect type system designed from the ground up around a novel variant of Plotkin and Pretnar's effect handler abstraction.Effect handlers provide an abstraction for modular effectful programming: a handler acts as an interpreter for a collection of commands whose interfaces are statically tracked by the type system. However, Frank eliminates the need for an additional effect handling construct by generalising the basic mechanism of functional abstraction itself. A function is simply the special case of a Frank operator that interprets no commands. Moreover, Frank's operators can be multihandlers which simultaneously interpret commands from several sources at once, without disturbing the direct style of functional programming with values.Effect typing in Frank employs a novel form of effect polymorphism which avoid mentioning effect variables in source code. This is achieved by propagating an ambient ability inwards, rather than accumulating unions of potential effects outwards.We introduce Frank by example, and then give a formal account of the Frank type system and its semantics. We introduce Core Frank by elaborating Frank operators into functions, case expressions, and unary handlers, and then give a sound small-step operational semantics for Core Frank.Programming with effects and handlers is in its infancy. We contribute an exploration of future possibilities, particularly in combination with other forms of rich type system. Hillerström and Lindley [20-22] (Links [11]) and Leijen [30] (Koka [29]) have extended existing languages with effect handlers and algebraic effects. Both languages incorporate row-based effect type systems and attempt to elide some effect variables from source code, but neither eliminates effect variables to the extent that Frank does. Dolan et al. [12] built Multicore OCaml by extending OCaml with support for effect handlers and algebraic effects. Multicore OCaml does not include an effect type system.Whereas Frank is bidirectionally typed, all of these other languages use Hindley-Milner type inference. None of the other languages supports multihandlers and none of those with effect typing allow effect variables to be omitted to the degree that Frank does.Kammar et al.[25] describe a number of effect handler libraries for languages ranging from Racket, to SML, to OCaml, to Haskell. Apart from the Haskell library, their libraries have no effect typing support. The Haskell library takes advantage of type classes to simulate an effect type system not entirely dissimilar to that of Frank. As Haskell is lazy, the Haskell library cannot be used to write direct-style effectful programs-one must instead adopt a monadic style. Moreover, although there are a number of ways of almost simulating effect type systems in Haskell, none is without its flaws. Kiselyov and collaborators [26,27] have built another Haskell library for effect handlers, making different design choices.Brady's effe...

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do be do be do

LindleySam¹,

McBrideConor²,

McLaughlinCraig³

2017

SIGPLAN Not.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some functional programming languages, like Haskell, use indentation as part of their syntax [30]. The dismantling method doesn't handle indentations, although this could be a future topic of research, namely, whether this method could be extended.…”

Section: Limitations and Open Questionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Innovative Approach to Syntax-Free Interpretation in Functional Programming Languages

Alaqeeli

2023

ISI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the realm of programming languages, interpreters fundamentally rely on syntax analysis (parsing) for establishing a correct evaluation hierarchy. Traditional parsing methods, however, present limitations in terms of optimization. This study introduces an innovative approach that circumvents syntax analysis in the interpretation of functional programming languages. The proposed method employs a novel subroutine, transforming program expressions into a series of atomic expressions, herein referred to as the "molecular program." Each atomic expression within this molecular program constitutes an element of the program's lexicon, assigned a unique identifier that supplants its role in the original expression. The evaluation process adopts a recursive methodology, where the evaluation of a single variable invariably leads to the sequential evaluation of related variables. For the purposes of clarity and demonstration, this approach is exemplified using Lucid, a notable functional programming language. It is posited that this syntax-free interpretation method can be universally applied to any functional programming language that operates on the principles of expressions, functions, or formulas. The efficacy of this method is validated through rigorous testing, suggesting an enhancement in the efficiency of programming language interpretation.

show abstract

“…There are many different options for the semantics of (ňŋ), in particular in this paper we refer to the deterministic-choice operation with backtracking. This operation is a criteria for being able to parse PEG grammars [Adams and Ağacan 2014;Ford 2004]. The operation has a caveat though: backtracking is only permitted when no input was consumed during a failed branch.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Staged selective parser combinators

Willis

Pickering

2020

Proc. ACM Program. Lang.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Parser combinators are a middle ground between the fine control of hand-rolled parsers and the high-level almost grammar-like appearance of parsers created via parser generators. They also promote a cleaner, compositional design for parsers. Historically, however, they cannot match the performance of their counterparts. This paper describes how to compile parser combinators into parsers of handwritten quality. This is done by leveraging the static information present in the grammar by representing it as a tree. However, in order to exploit this information, it will be necessary to drop support for monadic computation since this generates dynamic structure. Selective functors can help recover lost functionality in the absence of monads, and the parser tree can be partially evaluated with staging. This is implemented in a library called Parsley.

show abstract

Indentation-sensitive parsing for Parsec

Cited by 4 publications

References 5 publications

Do be do be do

Do be do be do

An Innovative Approach to Syntax-Free Interpretation in Functional Programming Languages

Staged selective parser combinators

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About