diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'src/GF')
| -rw-r--r-- | src/GF/Canon/CanonToGFCC.hs | 41 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | src/GF/Canon/GFCC/doc/gfcc.html | 721 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | src/GF/Canon/GFCC/doc/gfcc.txt | 24 |
3 files changed, 769 insertions, 17 deletions
diff --git a/src/GF/Canon/CanonToGFCC.hs b/src/GF/Canon/CanonToGFCC.hs index 43e0e8f5c..da40b8718 100644 --- a/src/GF/Canon/CanonToGFCC.hs +++ b/src/GF/Canon/CanonToGFCC.hs @@ -119,6 +119,16 @@ reorder cg = M.MGrammar $ (i,mo) <- mos, M.isModCnc mo, elem i (M.allExtends cg la), finfo <- tree2list (M.jments mo)] +-- one grammar per language - needed for symtab generation +repartition :: CanonGrammar -> [CanonGrammar] +repartition cg = [M.partOfGrammar cg (lang,mo) | + let abs = maybe (error "no abstract") id $ M.greatestAbstract cg, + let mos = M.allModMod cg, + lang <- M.allConcretes cg abs, + let mo = errVal + (error ("no module found for " ++ A.prt lang)) $ M.lookupModule cg lang + ] + -- convert to UTF8 if not yet converted utf8Conv :: CanonGrammar -> CanonGrammar utf8Conv = M.MGrammar . map toUTF8 . M.modules where @@ -136,22 +146,25 @@ utf8Conv = M.MGrammar . map toUTF8 . M.modules where -- translate tables and records to arrays, parameters and labels to indices canon2canon :: CanonGrammar -> CanonGrammar -canon2canon cg = tr $ M.MGrammar $ map c2c $ M.modules cg where - c2c (c,m) = case m of - M.ModMod mo@(M.Module _ _ _ _ _ js) -> - (c, M.ModMod $ M.replaceJudgements mo $ mapTree j2j js) - _ -> (c,m) - j2j (f,j) = case j of - GFC.CncFun x y tr z -> (f,GFC.CncFun x y (t2t tr) z) - _ -> (f,j) - t2t = term2term cg pv - pv@(labels,untyps,typs) = paramValues cg - tr = trace $ - (unlines [A.prt c ++ "." ++ unwords (map A.prt l) +++ "=" +++ show i | +canon2canon = recollect . map cl2cl . repartition where + recollect = + M.MGrammar . nubBy (\ (i,_) (j,_) -> i==j) . concatMap M.modules + cl2cl cg = tr $ M.MGrammar $ map c2c $ M.modules cg where + c2c (c,m) = case m of + M.ModMod mo@(M.Module _ _ _ _ _ js) -> + (c, M.ModMod $ M.replaceJudgements mo $ mapTree j2j js) + _ -> (c,m) + j2j (f,j) = case j of + GFC.CncFun x y tr z -> (f,GFC.CncFun x y (t2t tr) z) + _ -> (f,j) + t2t = term2term cg pv + pv@(labels,untyps,typs) = paramValues cg + tr = trace $ + (unlines [A.prt c ++ "." ++ unwords (map A.prt l) +++ "=" +++ show i | ((c,l),i) <- Map.toList labels]) ++ - (unlines [A.prt t +++ "=" +++ show i | + (unlines [A.prt t +++ "=" +++ show i | (t,i) <- Map.toList untyps]) ++ - (unlines [A.prt t | + (unlines [A.prt t | (t,_) <- Map.toList typs]) type ParamEnv = diff --git a/src/GF/Canon/GFCC/doc/gfcc.html b/src/GF/Canon/GFCC/doc/gfcc.html new file mode 100644 index 000000000..ef88980a4 --- /dev/null +++ b/src/GF/Canon/GFCC/doc/gfcc.html @@ -0,0 +1,721 @@ +<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> +<HTML> +<HEAD> +<META NAME="generator" CONTENT="http://txt2tags.sf.net"> +<TITLE>The GFCC Grammar Format</TITLE> +</HEAD><BODY BGCOLOR="white" TEXT="black"> +<P ALIGN="center"><CENTER><H1>The GFCC Grammar Format</H1> +<FONT SIZE="4"> +<I>Aarne Ranta</I><BR> +October 3, 2006 +</FONT></CENTER> + +<P></P> +<HR NOSHADE SIZE=1> +<P></P> + <UL> + <LI><A HREF="#toc1">What is GFCC</A> + <LI><A HREF="#toc2">GFCC vs. GFC</A> + <LI><A HREF="#toc3">The syntax of GFCC files</A> + <UL> + <LI><A HREF="#toc4">Top level</A> + <LI><A HREF="#toc5">Abstract syntax</A> + <LI><A HREF="#toc6">Concrete syntax</A> + </UL> + <LI><A HREF="#toc7">The semantics of concrete syntax terms</A> + <UL> + <LI><A HREF="#toc8">Linearization and realization</A> + <LI><A HREF="#toc9">Term evaluation</A> + <LI><A HREF="#toc10">The special term constructors</A> + </UL> + <LI><A HREF="#toc11">Compiling to GFCC</A> + <UL> + <LI><A HREF="#toc12">Problems in GFCC compilation</A> + <LI><A HREF="#toc13">Running the compiler and the GFCC interpreter</A> + </UL> + <LI><A HREF="#toc14">The reference interpreter</A> + <LI><A HREF="#toc15">Some things to do</A> + </UL> + +<P></P> +<HR NOSHADE SIZE=1> +<P></P> +<P> +Author's address: +<A HREF="http://www.cs.chalmers.se/~aarne"><CODE>http://www.cs.chalmers.se/~aarne</CODE></A> +</P> +<A NAME="toc1"></A> +<H2>What is GFCC</H2> +<P> +GFCC is a low-level format for GF grammars. Its aim is to contain the minimum +that is needed to process GF grammars at runtime. This minimality has three +advantages: +</P> +<UL> +<LI>compact grammar files and run-time objects +<LI>time and space efficient processing +<LI>simple definition of interpreters +</UL> + +<P> +The idea is that all embedded GF applications are compiled to GFCC. +The GF system would be primarily used as a compiler and as a grammar +development tool. +</P> +<P> +Since GFCC is implemented in BNFC, a parser of the format is readily +available for C, C++, Haskell, Java, and OCaml. Also an XML +representation is generated in BNFC. A +<A HREF="../">reference implementation</A> +of linearization and some other functions has been written in Haskell. +</P> +<A NAME="toc2"></A> +<H2>GFCC vs. GFC</H2> +<P> +GFCC is aimed to replace GFC as the run-time grammar format. GFC was designed +to be a run-time format, but also to +support separate compilation of grammars, i.e. +to store the results of compiling +individual GF modules. But this means that GFC has to contain extra information, +such as type annotations, which is only needed in compilation and not at +run-time. In particular, the pattern matching syntax and semantics of GFC is +complex and therefore difficult to implement in new platforms. +</P> +<P> +The main differences of GFCC compared with GFC can be summarized as follows: +</P> +<UL> +<LI>there are no modules, and therefore no qualified names +<LI>a GFCC grammar is multilingual, and consists of a common abstract syntax + together with one concrete syntax per language +<LI>records and tables are replaced by arrays +<LI>record labels and parameter values are replaced by integers +<LI>record projection and table selection are replaced by array indexing +<LI>there is (so far) no support for dependent types or higher-order abstract + syntax (which would be easy to add, but make interpreters much more difficult + to write) +</UL> + +<P> +Here is an example of a GF grammar, consisting of three modules, +as translated to GFCC. The representations are aligned, with the exceptions +due to the alphabetical sorting of GFCC grammars. +</P> +<PRE> + grammar Ex (Eng Swe); + + abstract Ex = { abstract { + cat + S ; NP ; VP ; + fun + Pred : NP -> VP -> S ; Pred : NP VP -> S = (Pred); + She, They : NP ; She : -> NP = (She); + Sleep : VP ; Sleep : -> VP = (Sleep); + They : -> NP = (They); + } } ; + ; + concrete Eng of Ex = { concrete Eng { + lincat + S = {s : Str} ; + NP = {s : Str ; n : Num} ; + VP = {s : Num => Str} ; + param + Num = Sg | Pl ; + lin + Pred np vp = { Pred = [($0[1], $1[0][$0[0]])] ; + s = np.s ++ vp.s ! np.n} ; + She = {s = "she" ; n = Sg} ; She = [0, "she"]; + They = {s = "they" ; n = Pl} ; + Sleep = {s = table { Sleep = [("sleep" + ["s",""])]; + Sg => "sleeps" ; + Pl => "sleep" They = [1, "they"]; + } } ; + } ; + } + + concrete Swe of Ex = { concrete Swe { + lincat + S = {s : Str} ; + NP = {s : Str} ; + VP = {s : Str} ; + param + Num = Sg | Pl ; + lin + Pred np vp = { Pred = [($0[1], $1[0])]; + s = np.s ++ vp.s} ; + She = {s = "hon"} ; She = ["hon"]; + They = {s = "de"} ; They = ["de"]; + Sleep = {s = "sover"} ; Sleep = ["sover"]; + } ; + } ; +</PRE> +<P></P> +<A NAME="toc3"></A> +<H2>The syntax of GFCC files</H2> +<A NAME="toc4"></A> +<H3>Top level</H3> +<P> +A grammar has a header telling the name of the abstract syntax +(often specifying an application domain), and the names of +the concrete languages. The abstract syntax and the concrete +syntaxes themselves follow. +</P> +<PRE> + Grammar ::= Header ";" Abstract ";" [Concrete] ";" ; + Header ::= "grammar" CId "(" [CId] ")" ; + Abstract ::= "abstract" "{" [AbsDef] "}" ";" ; + Concrete ::= "concrete" CId "{" [CncDef] "}" ; +</PRE> +<P> +Abstract syntax judgements give typings and semantic definitions. +Concrete syntax judgements give linearizations. +</P> +<PRE> + AbsDef ::= CId ":" Type "=" Exp ; + CncDef ::= CId "=" Term ; +</PRE> +<P> +Also flags are possible, local to each "module" (i.e. abstract and concretes). +</P> +<PRE> + AbsDef ::= "%" CId "=" String ; + CncDef ::= "%" CId "=" String ; +</PRE> +<P> +For the run-time system, the reference implementation in Haskell +uses a structure that gives efficient look-up: +</P> +<PRE> + data GFCC = GFCC { + absname :: CId , + cncnames :: [CId] , + abstract :: Abstr , + concretes :: Map CId Concr + } + + data Abstr = Abstr { + funs :: Map CId Type, -- find the type of a fun + cats :: Map CId [CId] -- find the funs giving a cat + } + + type Concr = Map CId Term +</PRE> +<P></P> +<A NAME="toc5"></A> +<H3>Abstract syntax</H3> +<P> +Types are first-order function types built from +category symbols. Syntax trees (<CODE>Exp</CODE>) are +rose trees with the head (<CODE>Atom</CODE>) either a function +constant, a metavariable, or a string, integer, or float +literal. +</P> +<PRE> + Type ::= [CId] "->" CId ; + Exp ::= "(" Atom [Exp] ")" ; + Atom ::= CId ; -- function constant + Atom ::= "?" ; -- metavariable + Atom ::= String ; -- string literal + Atom ::= Integer ; -- integer literal + Atom ::= Double ; -- float literal +</PRE> +<P></P> +<A NAME="toc6"></A> +<H3>Concrete syntax</H3> +<P> +Linearization terms (<CODE>Term</CODE>) are built as follows. +</P> +<PRE> + Term ::= "[" [Term] "]" ; -- array + Term ::= Term "[" Term "]" ; -- access to indexed field + Term ::= "(" [Term] ")" ; -- sequence with ++ + Term ::= Tokn ; -- token + Term ::= "$" Integer ; -- argument subtree + Term ::= Integer ; -- array index + Term ::= "[|" [Term] "|]" ; -- free variation +</PRE> +<P> +Tokens are strings or (maybe obsolescent) prefix-dependent +variant lists. +</P> +<PRE> + Tokn ::= String ; + Tokn ::= "[" "pre" [String] "[" [Variant] "]" "]" ; + Variant ::= [String] "/" [String] ; +</PRE> +<P> +Three special forms of terms are introduced by the compiler +as optimizations. They can in principle be eliminated, but +their presence makes grammars much more compact. Their semantics +will be explained in a later section. +</P> +<PRE> + Term ::= CId ; -- global constant + Term ::= "(" String "+" Term ")" ; -- prefix + suffix table + Term ::= "(" Term "@" Term ")"; -- record parameter alias +</PRE> +<P> +Identifiers are like <CODE>Ident</CODE> in GF and GFC, except that +the compiler produces constants prefixed with <CODE>_</CODE> in +the common subterm elimination optimization. +</P> +<PRE> + token CId (('_' | letter) (letter | digit | '\'' | '_')*) ; +</PRE> +<P></P> +<A NAME="toc7"></A> +<H2>The semantics of concrete syntax terms</H2> +<A NAME="toc8"></A> +<H3>Linearization and realization</H3> +<P> +The linearization algorithm is essentially the same as in +GFC: a tree is linearized by evaluating its linearization term +in the environment of the linearizations of the subtrees. +Literal atoms are linearized in the obvious way. +The function also needs to know the language (i.e. concrete syntax) +in which linearization is performed. +</P> +<PRE> + linExp :: GFCC -> CId -> Exp -> Term + linExp mcfg lang tree@(Tr at trees) = case at of + AC fun -> comp (Prelude.map lin trees) $ look fun + AS s -> R [kks (show s)] -- quoted + AI i -> R [kks (show i)] + AF d -> R [kks (show d)] + AM -> R [kks "?"] ---- TODO: proper lincat + where + lin = linExp mcfg lang + comp = compute mcfg lang + look = lookLin mcfg lang +</PRE> +<P> +The result of linearization is usually a record, which is realized as +a string using the following algorithm. +</P> +<PRE> + realize :: Term -> String + realize trm = case trm of + R (t:_) -> realize t + S ss -> unwords $ Prelude.map realize ss + K (KS s) -> s + K (KP s _) -> unwords s ---- prefix choice TODO + W s t -> s ++ realize t + FV (t:_) -> realize t +</PRE> +<P> +Since the order of record fields is not necessarily +the same as in GF source, +this realization does not work securely for +categories whose lincats more than one field. +</P> +<A NAME="toc9"></A> +<H3>Term evaluation</H3> +<P> +Evaluation follows call-by-value order, with two environments +needed: +</P> +<UL> +<LI>the grammar (a concrete syntax) to give the global constants +<LI>an array of terms to give the subtree linearizations +</UL> + +<P> +The code is cleaned from debugging information present in the working +version. +</P> +<PRE> + compute :: GFCC -> CId -> [Term] -> Term -> Term + compute mcfg lang args = comp where + comp trm = case trm of + P r (FV ts) -> FV $ Prelude.map (comp . P r) ts + + P r p -> case (comp r, comp p) of + + -- for the suffix optimization + (W s (R ss), p') -> case comp $ idx ss (getIndex p') of + K (KS u) -> kks (s ++ u) + + (r', p') -> comp $ (getFields r') !! (getIndex p') + + RP i t -> RP (comp i) (comp t) + W s t -> W s (comp t) + R ts -> R $ Prelude.map comp ts + V i -> args !! (fromInteger i) -- already computed + S ts -> S $ Prelude.filter (/= S []) $ Prelude.map comp ts + F c -> comp $ lookLin mcfg lang -- not yet computed + FV ts -> FV $ Prelude.map comp ts + _ -> trm + + getIndex t = case t of + C i -> fromInteger i + RP p _ -> getIndex p + + getFields t = case t of + R rs -> rs + RP _ r -> getFields r +</PRE> +<P></P> +<A NAME="toc10"></A> +<H3>The special term constructors</H3> +<P> +The three forms introduced by the compiler may a need special +explanation. +</P> +<P> +Global constants +</P> +<PRE> + Term ::= CId ; +</PRE> +<P> +are shorthands for complex terms. They are produced by the +compiler by (iterated) common subexpression elimination. +They are often more powerful than hand-devised code sharing in the source +code. They could be computed off-line by replacing each identifier by +its definition. +</P> +<P> +Prefix-suffix tables +</P> +<PRE> + Term ::= "(" String "+" Term ")" ; +</PRE> +<P> +represent tables of word forms divided to the longest common prefix +and its array of suffixes. In the example grammar above, we have +</P> +<PRE> + Sleep = [("sleep" + ["s",""])] +</PRE> +<P> +which in fact is equal to the array of full forms +</P> +<PRE> + ["sleeps", "sleep"] +</PRE> +<P> +The power of this construction comes from the fact that suffix sets +tend to be repeated in a language, and can therefore be collected +by common subexpression elimination. It is this technique that +explains the used syntax rather than the more accurate +</P> +<PRE> + "(" String "+" [String] ")" +</PRE> +<P> +since we want the suffix part to be a <CODE>Term</CODE> for the optimization to +take effect. +</P> +<P> +The most curious construct of GFCC is the parameter array alias, +</P> +<PRE> + Term ::= "(" Term "@" Term ")"; +</PRE> +<P> +This form is used as the value of parameter records, such as the type +</P> +<PRE> + {n : Number ; p : Person} +</PRE> +<P> +The problem with parameter records is their double role. +They can be used like parameter values, as indices in selection, +</P> +<PRE> + VP.s ! {n = Sg ; p = P3} +</PRE> +<P> +but also as records, from which parameters can be projected: +</P> +<PRE> + {n = Sg ; p = P3}.n +</PRE> +<P> +Whichever use is selected as primary, a prohibitively complex +case expression must be generated at compilation to GFCC to get the +other use. The adopted +solution is to generate a pair containing both a parameter value index +and an array of indices of record fields. For instance, if we have +</P> +<PRE> + param Number = Sg | Pl ; Person = P1 | P2 | P3 ; +</PRE> +<P> +we get the encoding +</P> +<PRE> + {n = Sg ; p = P3} ---> (2 @ [0,2]) +</PRE> +<P> +The GFCC computation rules are essentially +</P> +<PRE> + t [(i @ r)] = t[i] + (i @ r) [j] = r[j] +</PRE> +<P></P> +<A NAME="toc11"></A> +<H2>Compiling to GFCC</H2> +<P> +Compilation to GFCC is performed by the GF grammar compiler, and +GFCC interpreters need not know what it does. For grammar writers, +however, it might be interesting to know what happens to the grammars +in the process. +</P> +<P> +The compilation phases are the following +</P> +<OL> +<LI>translate GF source to GFC, as always in GF +<LI>undo GFC back-end optimizations +<LI>perform the <CODE>values</CODE> optimization to normalize tables +<LI>create a symbol table mapping the GFC parameter and record types to + fixed-size arrays, and parameter values and record labels to integers +<LI>traverse the linearization rules replacing parameters and labels by integers +<LI>reorganize the created GFC grammar so that it has just one abstract syntax + and one concrete syntax per language +<LI>apply UTF8 encoding to the grammar, if not yet applied (this is told by the + <CODE>coding</CODE> flag) +<LI>translate the GFC syntax tree to a GFCC syntax tree, using a simple + compositional mapping +<LI>perform the word-suffix optimization on GFCC linearization terms +<LI>perform subexpression elimination on each concrete syntax module +<LI>print out the GFCC code +</OL> + +<P> +Notice that a major part of the compilation is done within GFC, so that +GFC-related tasks (such as parser generation) could be performed by +using the old algorithms. +</P> +<A NAME="toc12"></A> +<H3>Problems in GFCC compilation</H3> +<P> +Two major problems had to be solved in compiling GFC to GFCC: +</P> +<UL> +<LI>consistent order of tables and records, to permit the array translation +<LI>run-time variables in complex parameter values. +</UL> + +<P> +The current implementation is still experimental and may fail +to generate correct code. Any errors remaining are likely to be +related to the two problems just mentioned. +</P> +<P> +The order problem is solved in different ways for tables and records. +For tables, the <CODE>values</CODE> optimization of GFC already manages to +maintain a canonical order. But this order can be destroyed by the +<CODE>share</CODE> optimization. To make sure that GFCC compilation works properly, +it is safest to recompile the GF grammar by using the <CODE>values</CODE> +optimization flag. +</P> +<P> +Records can be canonically ordered by sorting them by labels. +In fact, this was done in connection of the GFCC work as a part +of the GFC generation, to guarantee consistency. This means that +e.g. the <CODE>s</CODE> field will in general no longer appear as the first +field, even if it does so in the GF source code. But relying on the +order of fields in a labelled record would be misplaced anyway. +</P> +<P> +The canonical form of records is further complicated by lock fields, +i.e. dummy fields of form <CODE>lock_C = <></CODE>, which are added to grammar +libraries to force intensionality of linearization types. The problem +is that the absence of a lock field only generates a warning, not +an error. Therefore a GFC grammar can contain objects of the same +type with and without a lock field. This problem was solved in GFCC +generation by just removing all lock fields (defined as fields whose +type is the empty record type). This has the further advantage of +(slightly) reducing the grammar size. More importantly, it is safe +to remove lock fields, because they are never used in computation, +and because intensional types are only needed in grammars reused +as libraries, not in grammars used at runtime. +</P> +<P> +While the order problem is rather bureaucratic in nature, run-time +variables are an interesting problem. They arise in the presence +of complex parameter values, created by argument-taking constructors +and parameter records. To give an example, consider the GF parameter +type system +</P> +<PRE> + Number = Sg | Pl ; + Person = P1 | P2 | P3 ; + Agr = Ag Number Person ; +</PRE> +<P> +The values can be translated to integers in the expected way, +</P> +<PRE> + Sg = 0, Pl = 1 + P1 = 0, P2 = 1, P3 = 2 + Ag Sg P1 = 0, Ag Sg P2 = 1, Ag Sg P3 = 2, + Ag Pl P1 = 3, Ag Pl P2 = 4, Ag Pl P3 = 5 +</PRE> +<P> +However, an argument of <CODE>Agr</CODE> can be a run-time variable, as in +</P> +<PRE> + Ag np.n P3 +</PRE> +<P> +This expression must first be translated to a case expression, +</P> +<PRE> + case np.n of { + 0 => 2 ; + 1 => 5 + } +</PRE> +<P> +which can then be translated to the GFCC term +</P> +<PRE> + [2,5][$0[$1]] +</PRE> +<P> +assuming that the variable $np$ is the first argument and that its +$Number$ field is the second in the record. +</P> +<P> +This transformation of course has to be performed recursively, since +there can be several run-time variables in a parameter value: +</P> +<PRE> + Ag np.n np.p +</PRE> +<P> +A similar transformation would be possible to deal with the double +role of parameter records discussed above. Thus the type +</P> +<PRE> + RNP = {n : Number ; p : Person} +</PRE> +<P> +could be uniformly translated into the set <CODE>{0,1,2,3,4,5}</CODE> +as <CODE>Agr</CODE> above. Selections would be simple instances of indexing. +But any projection from the record should be translated into +a case expression, +</P> +<PRE> + rnp.n ===> + case rnp of { + 0 => 0 ; + 1 => 0 ; + 2 => 0 ; + 3 => 1 ; + 4 => 1 ; + 5 => 1 + } +</PRE> +<P> +To avoid the code bloat resulting from this, we chose the alias representation +which is easy enough to deal with in interpreters. +</P> +<A NAME="toc13"></A> +<H3>Running the compiler and the GFCC interpreter</H3> +<P> +GFCC generation is a part of the +<A HREF="http://www.cs.chalmers.se/Cs/Research/Language-technology/darcs/GF/doc/darcs.html">developers' version</A> +of GF since September 2006. To invoke the compiler, the flag +<CODE>-printer=gfcc</CODE> to the command +<CODE>pm = print_multi</CODE> is used. It is wise to recompile the grammar from +source, since previously compiled libraries may not obey the canonical +order of records. To <CODE>strip</CODE> the grammar before +GFCC translation removes unnecessary interface references. +Here is an example, performed in +<A HREF="../../../../../examples/bronzeage">example/bronzeage</A>. +</P> +<PRE> + i -src -path=.:prelude:resource-1.0/* -optimize=all_subs BronzeageEng.gf + i -src -path=.:prelude:resource-1.0/* -optimize=all_subs BronzeageGer.gf + strip + pm -printer=gfcc | wf bronze.gfcc +</PRE> +<P></P> +<A NAME="toc14"></A> +<H2>The reference interpreter</H2> +<P> +The reference interpreter written in Haskell consists of the following files: +</P> +<PRE> + -- source file for BNFC + GFCC.cf -- labelled BNF grammar of gfcc + + -- files generated by BNFC + AbsGFCC.hs -- abstrac syntax of gfcc + ErrM.hs -- error monad used internally + LexGFCC.hs -- lexer of gfcc files + ParGFCC.hs -- parser of gfcc files and syntax trees + PrintGFCC.hs -- printer of gfcc files and syntax trees + + -- hand-written files + DataGFCC.hs -- post-parser grammar creation, linearization and evaluation + GenGFCC.hs -- random and exhaustive generation, generate-and-test parsing + RunGFCC.hs -- main function - a simple command interpreter +</PRE> +<P> +It is included in the +<A HREF="http://www.cs.chalmers.se/Cs/Research/Language-technology/darcs/GF/doc/darcs.html">developers' version</A> +of GF, in the subdirectory <A HREF="../"><CODE>GF/src/GF/Canon/GFCC</CODE></A>. +</P> +<P> +To compile the interpreter, type +</P> +<PRE> + make gfcc +</PRE> +<P> +in <CODE>GF/src</CODE>. To run it, type +</P> +<PRE> + ./gfcc <GFCC-file> +</PRE> +<P> +The available commands are +</P> +<UL> +<LI><CODE>gr <Cat> <Int></CODE>: generate a number of random trees in category. + and show their linearizations in all languages +<LI><CODE>grt <Cat> <Int></CODE>: generate a number of random trees in category. + and show the trees and their linearizations in all languages +<LI><CODE>gt <Cat> <Int></CODE>: generate a number of trees in category from smallest, + and show their linearizations in all languages +<LI><CODE>gtt <Cat> <Int></CODE>: generate a number of trees in category from smallest, + and show the trees and their linearizations in all languages +<LI><CODE>p <Int> <Cat> <String></CODE>: "parse", i.e. generate trees until match or + until the given number have been generated +<LI><CODE><Tree></CODE>: linearize tree in all languages, also showing full records +<LI><CODE>quit</CODE>: terminate the system cleanly +</UL> + +<A NAME="toc15"></A> +<H2>Some things to do</H2> +<P> +Interpreters in Java and C++. +</P> +<P> +Parsing via MCFG +</P> +<UL> +<LI>the FCFG format can possibly be simplified +<LI>parser grammars should be saved in files to make interpreters easier +</UL> + +<P> +File compression of GFCC output. +</P> +<P> +Syntax editor based on GFCC. +</P> +<P> +Rewriting of resource libraries in order to exploit the +word-suffix sharing better (depth-one tables, as in FM). +</P> + +<!-- html code generated by txt2tags 2.3 (http://txt2tags.sf.net) --> +<!-- cmdline: txt2tags -thtml -\-toc gfcc.txt --> +</BODY></HTML> diff --git a/src/GF/Canon/GFCC/doc/gfcc.txt b/src/GF/Canon/GFCC/doc/gfcc.txt index 38e722169..e71d33b5a 100644 --- a/src/GF/Canon/GFCC/doc/gfcc.txt +++ b/src/GF/Canon/GFCC/doc/gfcc.txt @@ -504,8 +504,8 @@ GFCC translation removes unnecessary interface references. Here is an example, performed in [example/bronzeage ../../../../../examples/bronzeage]. ``` - i -src -path=.:prelude:resource-1.0/* -optimize=values BronzeageEng.gf - i -src -path=.:prelude:resource-1.0/* -optimize=values BronzeageGer.gf + i -src -path=.:prelude:resource-1.0/* -optimize=all_subs BronzeageEng.gf + i -src -path=.:prelude:resource-1.0/* -optimize=all_subs BronzeageGer.gf strip pm -printer=gfcc | wf bronze.gfcc ``` @@ -528,7 +528,7 @@ The reference interpreter written in Haskell consists of the following files: -- hand-written files DataGFCC.hs -- post-parser grammar creation, linearization and evaluation - GenGFCC.hs -- random and exhaustive generation, gen-and-test parsing + GenGFCC.hs -- random and exhaustive generation, generate-and-test parsing RunGFCC.hs -- main function - a simple command interpreter ``` It is included in the @@ -558,3 +558,21 @@ The available commands are - ``quit``: terminate the system cleanly +==Some things to do== + +Interpreters in Java and C++. + +Parsing via MCFG +- the FCFG format can possibly be simplified +- parser grammars should be saved in files to make interpreters easier + + +File compression of GFCC output. + +Syntax editor based on GFCC. + +Rewriting of resource libraries in order to exploit the +word-suffix sharing better (depth-one tables, as in FM). + + + |