在运行时动态组合 Boost.Spirit.Qi 规则(任意数量的替代方案)
我想知道 Boost.Spirit.Qi 中是否有一种方法可以在运行时动态组合任意数量的规则。 Boost.Spirit 的内部工作原理对我来说仍然有点神秘,但由于规则是作为对象实现的,所以它似乎是可行的。我的动机是使我的语法的某些部分易于扩展。
考虑以下人为的示例:
namespace qi = boost::spirit::qi;
namespace px = boost::phoenix;
typedef std::string::const_iterator iterator_t;
template<typename Expr>
inline bool parse_full(const std::string& input, const Expr& expr)
{
iterator_t first(input.begin()), last(input.end());
bool result = qi::phrase_parse(first, last, expr, boost::spirit::ascii::space);
return first == input.end() && result;
}
void no_op() {}
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
int attr = -1;
// "Static" version - Works fine!
/*
qi::rule<iterator_t, void(int&)> grammar;
qi::rule<iterator_t, void(int&)> ruleA = qi::char_('a')[qi::_r1 = px::val(0)];
qi::rule<iterator_t, void(int&)> ruleB = qi::char_('b')[qi::_r1 = px::val(1)];
qi::rule<iterator_t, void(int&)> ruleC = qi::char_('c')[qi::_r1 = px::val(2)];
grammar =
ruleA(qi::_r1) | //[no_op]
ruleB(qi::_r1) | //[no_op]
ruleC(qi::_r1); //[no_op]
*/
// "Dynamic" version - Does not compile! :(
std::vector<qi::rule<iterator_t, void(int&)>> rules;
rules.push_back(qi::char_('a')[qi::_r1 = px::val(0)]);
rules.push_back(qi::char_('b')[qi::_r1 = px::val(1)]);
rules.push_back(qi::char_('c')[qi::_r1 = px::val(2)]);
std::vector<qi::rule<iterator_t, void(int&)>>::iterator i(rules.begin()), last(rules.end());
qi::rule<iterator_t, void(int&)> grammar;
grammar = (*i)(qi::_r1);
for(++i; i!=last; ++i)
{
grammar = grammar.copy() | (*i)(qi::_r1);
}
// Tests
if(parse_full("a", grammar(px::ref(attr)))) std::cout << attr << std::endl;
if(parse_full("b", grammar(px::ref(attr)))) std::cout << attr << std::endl;
if(parse_full("c", grammar(px::ref(attr)))) std::cout << attr << std::endl;
std::cin.ignore(std::numeric_limits<std::streamsize>::max(), '\n');
return 0;
}
Visual Studio 2010 给出的错误是:
error C2440: 'initializing' : cannot convert from 'boost::fusion::void_' to 'int &'
我怀疑这是由于未将继承的属性传递给 grammar.copy()
引起的。不幸的是,我找不到简单的方法来做到这一点,所以我选择了一种解决方法。结果,我有了最后一个版本(我已经要感谢所有坚持到现在的人了!)。这实际上似乎有效:
// "Dynamic" version - Kind of works! :-/
std::vector<qi::rule<iterator_t, void(int&)>> rules;
rules.push_back(qi::char_('a')[qi::_r1 = px::val(0)]);
rules.push_back(qi::char_('b')[qi::_r1 = px::val(1)]);
rules.push_back(qi::char_('c')[qi::_r1 = px::val(2)]);
std::vector<qi::rule<iterator_t, void(int&)>>::iterator i(rules.begin()), last(rules.end());
qi::rule<iterator_t, int()> temp;
temp = (*i)(qi::_val); //[no_op]
for(++i; i!=last; ++i)
{
temp = temp.copy() | (*i)(qi::_val); //[no_op]
}
qi::rule<iterator_t, void(int&)> grammar;
grammar = temp[qi::_r1 = qi::_1];
但是,一旦我附加一个简单的语义操作(例如“[no_op]”),行为就变得非常奇怪。它不再像以前那样打印 0,1,2,而是打印 0,0,2。所以我想知道,我想要完成的事情是否会导致未定义的行为?这是一个错误吗?或者很可能,我只是以错误的方式使用某些东西(例如语义动作?)?
I was wondering whether there is a way in Boost.Spirit.Qi to dynamically combine an arbitrary number of rules at runtime. The inner workings of Boost.Spirit are still a bit of a mystery to me, but since rules are implemented as objects it seems feasible. My motivation is to make certain parts of my grammar easily extendable.
Consider the following contrived example:
namespace qi = boost::spirit::qi;
namespace px = boost::phoenix;
typedef std::string::const_iterator iterator_t;
template<typename Expr>
inline bool parse_full(const std::string& input, const Expr& expr)
{
iterator_t first(input.begin()), last(input.end());
bool result = qi::phrase_parse(first, last, expr, boost::spirit::ascii::space);
return first == input.end() && result;
}
void no_op() {}
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
int attr = -1;
// "Static" version - Works fine!
/*
qi::rule<iterator_t, void(int&)> grammar;
qi::rule<iterator_t, void(int&)> ruleA = qi::char_('a')[qi::_r1 = px::val(0)];
qi::rule<iterator_t, void(int&)> ruleB = qi::char_('b')[qi::_r1 = px::val(1)];
qi::rule<iterator_t, void(int&)> ruleC = qi::char_('c')[qi::_r1 = px::val(2)];
grammar =
ruleA(qi::_r1) | //[no_op]
ruleB(qi::_r1) | //[no_op]
ruleC(qi::_r1); //[no_op]
*/
// "Dynamic" version - Does not compile! :(
std::vector<qi::rule<iterator_t, void(int&)>> rules;
rules.push_back(qi::char_('a')[qi::_r1 = px::val(0)]);
rules.push_back(qi::char_('b')[qi::_r1 = px::val(1)]);
rules.push_back(qi::char_('c')[qi::_r1 = px::val(2)]);
std::vector<qi::rule<iterator_t, void(int&)>>::iterator i(rules.begin()), last(rules.end());
qi::rule<iterator_t, void(int&)> grammar;
grammar = (*i)(qi::_r1);
for(++i; i!=last; ++i)
{
grammar = grammar.copy() | (*i)(qi::_r1);
}
// Tests
if(parse_full("a", grammar(px::ref(attr)))) std::cout << attr << std::endl;
if(parse_full("b", grammar(px::ref(attr)))) std::cout << attr << std::endl;
if(parse_full("c", grammar(px::ref(attr)))) std::cout << attr << std::endl;
std::cin.ignore(std::numeric_limits<std::streamsize>::max(), '\n');
return 0;
}
The error given by Visual Studio 2010 is:
error C2440: 'initializing' : cannot convert from 'boost::fusion::void_' to 'int &'
My suspicion is that this is caused by not passing the inherited attribute to grammar.copy()
. Unfortunately, I couldn't find an easy way of doing this, so I opted for a workaround. As a result, I have one last version (and I would already like to thank anyone who stuck around until now!). This one actually seems to work:
// "Dynamic" version - Kind of works! :-/
std::vector<qi::rule<iterator_t, void(int&)>> rules;
rules.push_back(qi::char_('a')[qi::_r1 = px::val(0)]);
rules.push_back(qi::char_('b')[qi::_r1 = px::val(1)]);
rules.push_back(qi::char_('c')[qi::_r1 = px::val(2)]);
std::vector<qi::rule<iterator_t, void(int&)>>::iterator i(rules.begin()), last(rules.end());
qi::rule<iterator_t, int()> temp;
temp = (*i)(qi::_val); //[no_op]
for(++i; i!=last; ++i)
{
temp = temp.copy() | (*i)(qi::_val); //[no_op]
}
qi::rule<iterator_t, void(int&)> grammar;
grammar = temp[qi::_r1 = qi::_1];
However, once I attach a simple semantic action (such as "[no_op]"), the behavior becomes really weird. Rather than printing 0,1,2 as before, it prints 0,0,2. So I'm wondering, is what I'm trying to accomplish resulting in undefined behavior? Is this a bug? Or quite possibly, am I just using something (e.g. semantic actions?) the wrong way?
如果你对这篇内容有疑问,欢迎到本站社区发帖提问 参与讨论,获取更多帮助,或者扫码二维码加入 Web 技术交流群。
绑定邮箱获取回复消息
由于您还没有绑定你的真实邮箱,如果其他用户或者作者回复了您的评论,将不能在第一时间通知您!
发布评论
评论(1)
是的,我不确定是否真正理解它的内部工作原理,但您没有复制 for 循环中的所有规则(仅复制左侧的规则),因此这似乎有效:
Yes I'm not sure to really understand how it work internally but you do not copy all the rules in your for loop (only the left one) so this seems to work: