Reserved word detection as it was implemented in the JavaScript example
grammar had two big downsides:
1. It required changes in ordering of choices in some rules in order
not to trigger the detection prematurely. One of the changes was
already implemented (in the |Statement| rule, see the diff), but
apparently more were needed (the grammar didn't parse inputs like
|true| or |function f() {}|). And I'm not 100% sure that would be
the end of it (maybe deeper structural changes would be needed).
2. It made error messages confusing. Consider the following example:
var a = @;
Instead of reporting:
Expected ... but "@" found.
the generated parser reported:
Reserved word "var" can't be used as an identifier.
This was because the parser parsed the statement first as
|VariableStatement| and when this failed, it tried to parse it as
|ExpressionStatement|, triggering the reserved word detection.
Because of these, I decided to remove reserved word detection from the
JavaScript example grammar.
Fixes a problem where statements starting with a reserved word produced
errors like this:
Reserved word "return" can't be used as an identifier.
The problem was in a wrong ordering of choices in the |Statement| rule
together with aggressive reserved word detection in the |Identifier|
rule.
This is a complete rewrite of the JavaScript example grammar. It is now
based on ECMA-262, 5.1 Edition and the generated parser builds a syntax
tree compatible with Mozilla SpiderMonkey Parser API. There is also a
number of cleanups, formatting changes, naming changes, and bug fixes.
Beside this, the rewrite reflects how I write grammars today (as opposed
to few years ago) and what style I would recommend to others.
Before this commit, the |?| operator returned an empty string upon
unsuccessful match. This commit changes the returned value to |null|. It
also updates the PEG.js grammar and the example grammars, which used the
value returned by |?| quite often.
Returning |null| is possible because it no longer indicates a match
failure.
I expect that this change will simplify many real-world grammars, as an
empty string is almost never desirable as a return value (except some
lexer-level rules) and it is often translated into |null| or some other
value in action code.
Implements part of #198.
JavaScript allows one to skip (elide) elements in array literals. It
also allows a trailing comma, which doesn't imply an element elision.
For example, an array literal:
[,,,]
contains three elided elements (one before each comma) and a trailing
comma.
Example JavaScript parser handled elided elements incorrectly and just
threw them away. This commit fixes this behvior and inserts |null| in
the AST for each elided element. This is in line with how SpiderMonkey's
JavaScript parser (the |Reflect.parse| API), Esprima and Acorn behave.
Based on a patch by @fpirsch:
https://github.com/dmajda/pegjs/pull/177
Makes the |ArrayLiteral| and |ElementList| rules more in line with the
ECMAScript grammar.
Based on a patch by @fpirsch:
https://github.com/dmajda/pegjs/pull/177
Fix automatic semi-colon insertion in var statements without
initialisers.
var i
i = 1;
is valid and not accepted by the parser
but
var i = 2
i = 3;
is valid and accepted by the parser, as it should be.
With this fix, both are accepted.
Labeled expressions lead to more maintainable code and also will allow
certain optimizations (we can ignore results of expressions not passed
to the actions).
This does not speed up the benchmark suite execution statistically
significantly on V8.
Detailed results (benchmark suite totals):
---------------------------------
Test # Before After
---------------------------------
1 28.43 kB/s 28.46 kB/s
2 28.38 kB/s 28.56 kB/s
3 28.22 kB/s 28.58 kB/s
4 28.76 kB/s 28.55 kB/s
5 28.57 kB/s 28.48 kB/s
---------------------------------
Average 28.47 kB/s 28.53 kB/s
---------------------------------
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US) AppleWebKit/533.4 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/5.0.375.55 Safari/533.4
I'll introduce labelled expressions shortly and I want to use ":" as a
label-expression separator. This change avoids conflict between the two
meanings of ":". (What would e.g. "foo: 'bar'" mean? Rule "foo"
matching string "bar", or string "bar" labelled "foo"?)
David Majda
David Majda
fpirsch
Jason Davies