Related
This question already has answers here:
What to do Regular expression pattern doesn't match anywhere in string?
(8 answers)
Closed 8 years ago.
Reading this amusing rant ( RegEx match open tags except XHTML self-contained tags ) I wondered ... how could regexes be changed to successfully parse HTML?
I'm looking here for suggestions that :
make the minimal addition to regexes as we know and love them (ie. not "make them look like XSLT!" type answers)
are robust enough to work properly.
suggest syntax (not just list the general requirements)
Has anyone actually made something like this?
Add a new escape sequence:
\H -- match HTML document
DOM/XML parsers internally use regex to parse html. The difference between them and using ONLY regex is to make up for the shortcomings of regex. One of the major shortcomings of regex is handling nested tags and malformed code (like missing tags). So around the basic regex, all sorts of algorithms and conditions are written to try and handle those things. And then there is of course the parts that actually create an object out of it.
So you asked what it would take to make regex do what a DOM/XML parser does? You would have to somehow cram all those algorithms and conditions into the regex engine, internally and within pattern syntax.
I personally do not wish for this to happen. IMO regex should be straight pattern matching. IMO it already has some stuff in it that IMO is questionable (some regex flavors do in fact have a way to use conditions, for instance). Taking the regex engine and then building a larger tool around it (like a DOM/XML parser) IMO is the best way to go.
It's interesting that real world tools can be and often are modified to perform tasks they might not otherwise be suited for. For example, if someone were to attempt to eat broth with a fork, they would be largely unsuccessful. Enter the spork.
I don't think programmers necessarily work that way all the time. It's not uncommon for tools to expand their scope, but it's also been a long tradition that programmers try to use specific tools for specific purposes.
Now, it just so happens that in order for regex to be able to parse HTML, it would have to be a pattern matcher/recognizer that also remembered state. This is, to a T, exactly what a parser does. It uses pattern matching (indeed, it often uses regex!) in order to match tokens. It then remembers combinations of tokens.
So in fact regex is used very frequently to parse HTML, along with other functions that remember larger patterns that cannot be described or processed using regex alone.
Hope that answers the question.
Perl 6 has a regex extension that is designed to do that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perl_6_rules.
Depends what you mean by "parse". Typically this involves transforming a character stream into an object tree. To do this with regular expressions you would need to completely change capturing groups to be runtime-variable multi-node tree, rather than the compile-time-fixed array that they currently are. Once you've done that you've just re-written lex/yacc.
How to convert from chinese characters to hanyu pinyin?
E.g.
你 --> Nǐ
马 --> Mǎ
More Info:
Either accents or numerical forms of hanyu pinyin are acceptable, the numerical form being my preference.
A Java library is preferred, however, a library in another language that can be put in a wrapper is also OK.
I would like anyone who has personally used such a library before to recommend or comment on it, in terms of its quality/ reliabilitty.
The problem of converting hanzi to pinyin is a fairly difficult one. There are many hanzi characters which have multiple pinyin representations, depending on context. Compare 长大 (pinyin: zhang da) to 长城 (pinyin: chang cheng). For this reason, single-character conversion is often actually useless, unless you have a system that outputs multiple possibilities. There is also the issue of word segmentation, which can affect the pinyin representation as well. Though perhaps you already knew this, I thought it was important to say this.
That said, the Adso Package contains both a segmenter and a probabilistic pinyin annotator, based on the excellent Adso library. It takes a while to get used to though, and may be much larger than you are looking for (I have found in the past that it was a bit too bulky for my needs). Additionally, there doesn't appear to be a public API anywhere, and its C++ ...
For a recent project, because I was working with place names, I simply used the Google Translate API (specifically, the unofficial java port, which, for common nouns at least, usually does a good job of translating to pinyin. The problem is commonly-used alternative transliteration systems, such as "HongKong" for what should be "XiangGang". Given all of this, Google Translate is pretty limited, but it offers a start. I hadn't heard of pinyin4j before, but after playing with it just now, I have found that it is less than optimal--while it outputs a list of potential candidate pinyin romanizations it makes no attempt to statistically determine their likelihood. There is a method to return a single representation, but it will soon be phased out, as it currently only returns the first romanization, not the most likely. Where the program seems to do well is with conversion between romanizations and general configurability.
In short then, the answer may be either any one of these, depending on what you need. Idiosyncratic proper nouns? Google Translate. In need of statistics? Adso. Willing to accept candidate lists without context information? Pinyin4j.
In Python try
from cjklib.characterlookup import CharacterLookup
cjk = CharacterLookup('C')
cjk.getReadingForCharacter(u'北', 'Pinyin')
You would get
['běi', 'bèi']
Disclaimer: I'm the author of that library.
For Java, I'd try the pinyin4j library
As mentioned in other answers the conversion is fuzzy and even google translate apparently gets a certain percentage of character combinations wrong.
A reasonable result which will not be 100% accurate can be achieved with open-source libraries available for some programming languages.
The simplest code to do the conversion with python with the pypinyin library (to install it use pip3 install pypinyin):
from pypinyin import pinyin
def to_pinyin(chin):
return ' '.join([seg[0] for seg in pinyin(chin)])
print(to_pinyin('好久不见'))
# OUTPUT: hǎo jiǔ bú jiàn
NOTE: The pinyin method from the module returns a list of possible candidate segments, and the to_pinyin method takes the first variant whenever more than one conversion is available. For tricky corner cases this is likely to produce incorrect results, but generally you'll probably get at least a ~90..95% success rate.
There are a few other python libraries for pinyin conversion but in my tests they proved to have a higher error rate than pypinyin. Also, they don't appear to be actively maintained.
If you need better accuracy then you'll need a more complex approach that will rely on bigger datasets and possibly some machine learning.
The problem:
You have some data and your program needs specified input. For example strings which are numbers. You are searching for a way to transform the original data in a format you need.
And the problem is: The source can be anything. It can be XML, property lists, binary which
contains the needed data deeply embedded in binary junk. And your output format may vary
also: It can be number strings, float, doubles....
You don't want to program. You want routines which gives you commands capable to transform the data in a form you wish. Surely it contains regular expressions, but it is very good designed and it offers capabilities which are sometimes much more easier and more powerful.
ADDITION:
Many users have this problem and hope that their programs can convert, read and write data which is given by other sources. If it can't, they are doomed or use programs like business
intelligence. That is NOT the problem.
I am talking of a tool for a developer who knows what is he doing, but who is also dissatisfied to write every time routines in a regular language. A professional data manipulation tool, something like a hex editor, regex, vi, grep, parser melted together
accessible by routines or a REPL.
If you have the spec of the data format, you can access and transform the data at once. No need to debug or plan meticulously how to program the transformation. I am searching for a solution because I don't believe the problem is new.
It allows:
joining/grouping/merging of results
inserting/deleting/finding/replacing
write macros which allows to execute a command chain repeatedly
meta-grouping (lists->tables->n-dimensional tables)
Example (No, I am not looking for a solution to this, it is just an example):
You want to read xml strings embedded in a binary file with variable length records. Your
tool reads the record length and deletes the junk surrounding your text. Now it splits open
the xml and extracts the strings. Being Indian number glyphs and containing decimal commas instead of decimal points, your tool transforms it into ASCII and replaces commas with points. Now the results must be stored into matrices of variable length....etc. etc.
I am searching for a good language / language-design and if possible, an implementation.
Which design do you like or even, if it does not fulfill the conditions, wouldn't you want to miss ?
EDIT: The question is if a solution for the problem exists and if yes, which implementations are available. You DO NOT implement your own sorting algorithm if Quicksort, Mergesort and Heapsort is available. You DO NOT invent your own text parsing
method if you have regular expressions. You DO NOT invent your own 3D language for graphics if OpenGL/Direct3D is available. There are existing solutions or at least papers describing the problem and giving suggestions. And there are people who may have worked and experienced such problems and who can give ideas and suggestions. The idea that this problem is totally new and I should work out and implement it myself without background
knowledge seems for me, I must admit, totally off the mark.
UPDATE:
Unfortunately I had less time than anticipated to delve in the subject because our development team is currently in a hot phase. But I have contacted the author of TextTransformer and he kindly answered my questions.
I have investigated TextTransformer (http://www.texttransformer.de) in the meantime and so far I can see it offers a complete and efficient solution if you are going to parse character data.
For anyone who will give it a try to implement a good parsing language, the smallest set of operators to directly transform any input data to any output data if (!) they were powerful enough seems to be:
Insert/Remove: Self-explaining
Group/Ungroup: Split the input data into a set of tokens and organize them into groups
and supergroups (datastructures, lists, tables etc.)
Transform
Substituition: Change the content of the tokens (special operation: replace)
Transposition: Change the order of tokens (swap,merge etc.)
Have you investigated TextTransformer?
I have no experience with this, but it sounds pretty good and the author makes quite competent posts in the comp.compilers newsgroup.
You still have to some programming work.
For a programmer, I would suggest:
Perl against a SQL backend.
For a non-programmer, what it sounds like you're looking for is some sort of business intelligence suite.
This suggestion may broaden the scope of your search too much... but here it is:
You could either reuse, as-is, or otherwise get "inspiration" from the [open source] code of the SnapLogic framework.
Edit (answering the comment on SnapLogic documentation etc.)
I agree, the SnapLogic documentation leaves a bit to be desired, in particular for people in your situation, i.e. when just trying to quickly get an overview of what SnapLogic can do, and if it would generally meet their needs, without investing much time and learn the system in earnest.
Also, I realize that the scope and typical uses of of SnapLogic differ, somewhat, from the requirements expressed in the question, and I should have taken the time to better articulate the possible connection.
So here goes...
A salient and powerful feature of SnapLogic is its ability to [virtually] codelessly create "pipelines" i.e. processes made from pre-built components;
Components addressing the most common needs of Data Integration tasks at-large are supplied with the SnapLogic framework. For example, there are components to
read in and/or write to files in CSV or XML or fixed length format
connect to various SQL backends (for either input, output or both)
transform/format [readily parsed] data fields
sort records
join records for lookup and general "denormalized" record building (akin to SQL joins but applicable to any input [of reasonnable size])
merge sources
Filter records within a source (to select and, at a later step, work on say only records with attribute "State" equal to "NY")
see this list of available components for more details
A relatively weak area of functionality of SnapLogic (for the described purpose of the OP) is with regards to parsing. Standard components will only read generic file formats (XML, RSS, CSV, Fixed Len, DBMSes...) therefore structured (or semi-structured?) files such as the one described in the question, with mixed binary and text and such are unlikely to ever be a standard component.
You'd therefore need to write your own parsing logic, in Python or Java, respecting the SnapLogic API of course so the module can later "play nice" with the other ones.
BTW, the task of parsing the files described could be done in one of two ways, with a "monolithic" reader component (i.e. one which takes in the whole file and produces an array of readily parsed records), or with a multi-component approach, whereby an input component reads in and parse the file at "record" level (or line level or block level whatever this may be), and other standard or custom SnapLogic components are used to create a pipeline which effectively expresses the logic of parsing a record (or block or...) into its individual fields/attributes.
The second approach is of course more modular and may be applicable if the goal is to process many different files format, whereby each new format requires piecing together components with no or little coding. Whatever the approach used for the input / parsing of the file(s), the SnapLogic framework remains available to create pipelines to then process the parsed input in various fashion.
My understanding of the question therefore prompted me to suggest SnapLogic as a possible framework for the problem at hand, because I understood the gap in feature concerning the "codeless" parsing of odd-formatted files, but also saw some commonality of features with regards to creating various processing pipelines.
I also edged my suggestion, with an expression like "inspire onself from", because of the possible feature gap, but also because of the relative lack of maturity of the SnapLogic offering and its apparent commercial/open-source ambivalence.
(Note: this statement is neither a critique of the technical maturity/value of the framework per-se, nor a critique of business-oriented use of open-source, but rather a warning that business/commercial pressures may shape the offering in various direction)
To summarize:
Depending on the specific details of the vision expressed in the question, SnapLogic may be worthy of consideration, provided one understands that "some-assembly-required" will apply, in particular in the area of file parsing, and that the specific shape and nature of the product may evolve (but then again it is open source so one can freeze it or bend it as needed).
A more generic remark is that SnapLogic is based on Python which is a very swell language for coding various connectors, convertion logic etc.
In reply to Paul Nathan you mentioned writing throwaway code as something rather unpleasant. I don't see why it should be so. After all, all of our code will be thrown away and replaced eventually, no matter how perfect we wrote it. So my opinion is that writing throwaway code is pretty much ok, if you don't spend too much time writing it.
So, it seems that there are two approaches to solving your solution: either a) find some specific tool intended for the purpose (parse data, perform some basic operations on it and storing it in some specific structure) or b) use some general purpose language with lots of libraries and code it yourself.
I don't think that approach a) is viable because sooner or later you'll bump into an obstacle not covered by the tool and you'll spend your time and nerves hacking the tool, or mailing the authors and waiting for them to implement what you need. I might as well be wrong, so please if you find a perfect tool, drop here a link (I myself am doing lots of data processing in my day job and I can't swear that I couldn't do it more efficiently).
Approach b) may at first seem "unpleasant", but given a nice high-level expressive language with bunch of useful libraries (regexps, XML manipulation, creating parsers...) it shouldn't be too hard, and may be gradually turned into a DSL for the very purpose. Beside Perl which was already mentioned, Python and Ruby sound like good candidates for these languages (I bet some Lisp derivatives too, but I have no experience there).
You might find AntlrWorks useful if you go so far as defining formal grammars for what you're parsing.
I see questions every day asking how to parse or extract something from some HTML string and the first answer/comment is always "Don't use RegEx to parse HTML, lest you feel the wrath!" (that last part is sometimes omitted).
This is rather confusing for me, I always thought that in general, the best way to parse any complicated string is to use a regular expression. So how does a HTML parser work? Doesn't it use regular expressions to parse.
One particular argument for using a regular expression is that there's not always a parsing alternative (such as JavaScript, where DOMDocument isn't a universally available option). jQuery, for instance, seems to manage just fine using a regex to convert a HTML string to DOM nodes.
Not sure whether or not to CW this, it's a genuine question that I want to be answered and not really intended to be a discussion thread.
So how does a HTML parser work? Doesn't it use regular expressions to parse?
Well, no.
If you reach back in your brain to a theory of computation course, if you took one, or a compilers course, or something similar, you may recall that there are different kinds of languages and computational models. I'm not qualified to go into all the details, but I can review a few of the major points with you.
The simplest type of language & computation (for these purposes) is a regular language. These can be generated with regular expressions, and recognized with finite automata. Basically, that means that "parsing" strings in these languages use state, but not auxiliary memory. HTML is certainly not a regular language. If you think about it, the list of tags can be nested arbitrarily deeply. For example, tables can contain tables, and each table can contain lots of nested tags. With regular expressions, you may be able to pick out a pair of tags, but certainly not anything arbitrarily nested.
A classic simple language that is not regular is correctly matched parentheses. Try as you might, you will never be able to build a regular expression (or finite automaton) that will always work. You need memory to keep track of the nesting depth.
A state machine with a stack for memory is the next strength of computational model. This is called a push-down automaton, and it recognizes languages generated by context-free grammars. Here, we can recognize correctly matched parentheses--indeed, a stack is the perfect memory model for it.
Well, is this good enough for HTML? Sadly, no. Maybe for super-duper carefully validated XML, actually, in which all the tags always line up perfectly. In real-world HTML, you can easily find snippets like <b><i>wow!</b></i>. This obviously doesn't nest, so in order to parse it correctly, a stack is just not powerful enough.
The next level of computation is languages generated by general grammars, and recognized by Turing machines. This is generally accepted to be effectively the strongest computational model there is--a state machine, with auxiliary memory, whose memory can be modified anywhere. This is what programming languages can do. This is the level of complexity where HTML lives.
To summarize everything here in one sentence: to parse general HTML, you need a real programming language, not a regular expression.
HTML is parsed the same way other languages are parsed: lexing and parsing. The lexing step breaks down the stream of individual characters into meaningful tokens. The parsing step assembles the tokens, using states and memory, into a logically coherent document that can be acted on.
Usually by using a tokeniser. The draft HTML5 specification has an extensive algorithm for handling "real world HTML".
Regular expressions are just one form of parser. An honest-to-goodness HTML parser will be significantly more complicated than can be expressed in regexes, using recursive descent, prediction, and several other techniques to properly interpret the text. If you really want to get into it, you might check out lex & yacc and similar tools.
The prohibition against using regexes for HTML parsing should probably be written more correctly as: "Don't use naive regular expressions to parse HTML..." (lest ye feel the wrath) "...and treat the results with caution." For certain specific goals, a regex may well be perfectly adequate, but you need to be very careful to be aware of the limitations of your regex and as cautious as is appropriate to the source of the text you're parsing (e.g., if it's user input, be very careful indeed).
Parsing HTML is the transformation of a linear text into a tree structure. Regular expressions cannot generally handle tree structures. The regular expression you need at each point to get the next token changes all the time. You can use regular expressions in a parser, but you will need a whole array of regular expressions for each possible state of parsing.
If you want to have a 100% solution: You need to write your own custom code that iterates through the HTML character-by-character and you need to have a tremendous amount of logic to determine if you should stop the current node and start the next.
The reason is that this is valid HTML:
<ul>
<li>One
<li>Two
<li>Three
</ul>
But so is this:
<ul>
<li>One</li>
<li>Two</li>
<li>Three</li>
</ul>
If you are ok with "90% solution": Then using an XML parser to load a document is fine. Or using Regex (though the xml is easier if you are then master of the content).
Does anyone out there know about examples and the theory behind parsers that will take (maybe) an abstract syntax tree and produce code, instead of vice-versa. Mathematically, at least intuitively, I believe the function of code->AST is reversible, but I'm trying to find work/examples of this... besides the usual resources like the Dragon book and such. Any ideas?
Such thing is called a Visitor. Is traverses the tree and does whatever has to be done, for example optimize or generate code.
Our DMS Software Reengineering Toolkit insists on parsers and parser-inverses (called "prettyprinters") as "poker-ante" to mechanical processing (analyzing/transforming) of arbitrary languages. These provide full round-trip: source text to ASTs with captured position information (file/line/column) and comments, and AST to legal source text including regenerating the original token positions ("fidelity printing") or nicely formatted ("prettyprinting") options, including regeneration of the comments.
Parsers are often specified by a combination of grammars and lexical definitions of tokens; these notations are typically compiled into efficient parsing engines, and DMS does that for the "parser" side, as you might expect. Other folks here suggest that a "visitor" is the way to do prettyprinting, and, like assembly code, it is the right way to implement prettyprinting at the lowest level of abstraction. However, DMS prettyprinters are specified in terms of a text-box construction language over grammar terms something like Latex, that enables one to control the placement of the various language elements horizontally, vertically, embedded, spaced, concatenated, laminated, etc. DMS compiles these into efficient low-level visitors (as other answers suggest) that implement the box generation. But like the parser generator, you don't have see all the ugly detail.
DMS has some 30+ sets of these language front ends for a various programming langauge and formal notations, ranging from C++, C, Java, C#, COBOL, etc. to HTML, XML, assembly languages from some machines, temporaral property specifications, specs for composable abstract algebras, etc.
I rather like lewap's response:
find a mathematical way to express a
visitor and you have a dual to the
parser
But you asked for a sample, so try this on for size: Visual Studio contains a UML editor with excellent symmetry. The way both it and the editors are implemented, all constitute views of the model, and editing either modifies the model resulting in all remaining in synch.
Actually, generating code from a parse tree is strictly easier than parsing code, at least in a mathematical sense.
There are many grammars which are ambiguous, that is, there is no unique way to parse them, but a parse tree can always be converted to a string in a unique way, modulo whitespace.
The Dragon book gives a good description of the theory of parsers.
There are theory, working implementations and examples of reversible parsing in Haskell. The library is by Paweł Nowak. Please refer to
https://hackage.haskell.org/package/syntax
as your starting point. You can find the examples at following URLs.
https://hackage.haskell.org/package/syntax-example
https://hackage.haskell.org/package/syntax-example-json
I don't know where to find much about the theory, but boost::spirit 2.0 has both qi (parser) and karma (generator), sharing the same underlying structure and grammar, so it's a practical implementation of the concept.
Documentation on the generator side is still pretty thin (spirit2 was new in Boost 1.38, and is still in beta), but there are a few bits of karma sample code around, and AFAIK the library's in a working state and there are at least some examples available.
In addition to 'Visitor', 'unparser' is another good keyword to web-search for.
That sounds a lot like the back end of a non-optimizing compiler that has it's target language the same as it's source language.
One question would be whether you require the "unparsed" code to be identical to the original, or just functionally equivalent.
For example, would it be OK for the output to use a different indentation style than the original? That information wouldn't normally be stored in the AST because it's not semantically important.
One thing to look at would be automatic code refactoring tools.
I've been doing these forever, and calling them "DeParse".
It only gets tricky if you also want to recapture whitespace and comments. You have to tuck them into the parse tree so you can regenerate them on output.
The "Visitor Pattern" idea is good. But, I should consider "Visitor" pattern as a lineal list pattern, or, as a generic pattern, and add patterns for more specific cases like Lists, Matrices, and Trees.
Look for a "Hierarchical Visitor Pattern" or "Tree Visitor Pattern" on the web.
You have a tree data structure ("Collection") and want to do something with the data, each time you "visit", "iterate" or "read" an item from the tree.
In your case, you have a tree data structure, that represents the result of scanning/parsing some source code. Then you have read each item's data, and transform it into destination code.
There are several "lens languages" that allow bidirection transformation of source code.
It is also possible to implement reversible parsers using definite clause grammars in Prolog. In SWI-Prolog, the phrase/3 predicate converts parse trees into text and vice-versa. This book provides some additional examples of reversible parsing in Prolog.