问题
I have markup language which is similar to markdown and the one used by SO.
Legacy parser was based on regexes and was complete nightmare to maintain, so I've come up with my own solution based on EBNF grammar and implemented via mxTextTools/SimpleParse.
However, there are issues with some tokens which may include each other, and I don't see a 'right' way to do it.
Here is part of my grammar:
newline := "\r\n"/"\n"/"\r"
indent := ("\r\n"/"\n"/"\r"), [ \t]
number := [0-9]+
whitespace := [ \t]+
symbol_mark := [*_>#`%]
symbol_mark_noa := [_>#`%]
symbol_mark_nou := [*>#`%]
symbol_mark_nop := [*_>#`]
punctuation := [\(\)\,\.\!\?]
noaccent_code := -(newline / '`')+
accent_code := -(newline / '``')+
symbol := -(whitespace / newline)
text := -newline+
safe_text := -(newline / whitespace / [*_>#`] / '%%' / punctuation)+/whitespace
link := 'http' / 'ftp', 's'?, '://', (-[ \t\r\n<>`^'"*\,\.\!\?]/([,\.\?],?-[ \t\r\n<>`^'"*]))+
strikedout := -[ \t\r\n*_>#`^]+
ctrlw := '^W'+
ctrlh := '^H'+
strikeout := (strikedout, (whitespace, strikedout)*, ctrlw) / (strikedout, ctrlh)
strong := ('**', (inline_nostrong/symbol), (inline_safe_nostrong/symbol_mark_noa)* , '**') / ('__' , (inline_nostrong/symbol), (inline_safe_nostrong/symbol_mark_nou)*, '__')
emphasis := ('*',?-'*', (inline_noast/symbol), (inline_safe_noast/symbol_mark_noa)*, '*') / ('_',?-'_', (inline_nound/symbol), (inline_safe_nound/symbol_mark_nou)*, '_')
inline_code := ('`' , noaccent_code , '`') / ('``' , accent_code , '``')
inline_spoiler := ('%%', (inline_nospoiler/symbol), (inline_safe_nop/symbol_mark_nop)*, '%%')
inline := (inline_code / inline_spoiler / strikeout / strong / emphasis / link)
inline_nostrong := (?-('**'/'__'),(inline_code / reference / signature / inline_spoiler / strikeout / emphasis / link))
inline_nospoiler := (?-'%%',(inline_code / emphasis / strikeout / emphasis / link))
inline_noast := (?-'*',(inline_code / inline_spoiler / strikeout / strong / link))
inline_nound := (?-'_',(inline_code / inline_spoiler / strikeout / strong / link))
inline_safe := (inline_code / inline_spoiler / strikeout / strong / emphasis / link / safe_text / punctuation)+
inline_safe_nostrong := (?-('**'/'__'),(inline_code / inline_spoiler / strikeout / emphasis / link / safe_text / punctuation))+
inline_safe_noast := (?-'*',(inline_code / inline_spoiler / strikeout / strong / link / safe_text / punctuation))+
inline_safe_nound := (?-'_',(inline_code / inline_spoiler / strikeout / strong / link / safe_text / punctuation))+
inline_safe_nop := (?-'%%',(inline_code / emphasis / strikeout / strong / link / safe_text / punctuation))+
inline_full := (inline_code / inline_spoiler / strikeout / strong / emphasis / link / safe_text / punctuation / symbol_mark / text)+
line := newline, ?-[ \t], inline_full?
sub_cite := whitespace?, ?-reference, '>'
cite := newline, whitespace?, '>', sub_cite*, inline_full?
code := newline, [ \t], [ \t], [ \t], [ \t], text
block_cite := cite+
block_code := code+
all := (block_cite / block_code / line / code)+
First problem is, spoiler, strong and emphasis can include each other in arbitrary order. And its possible that later I'll need more such inline markups.
My current solution involves just creating separate token for each combination (inline_noast, inline_nostrong, etc), but obviously, number of such combinations grows too fast with growing number of markup elements.
Second problem is that these lookaheads in strong/emphasis behave VERY poorly on some cases of bad markup like __._.__*__.__...___._.____.__**___*** (lots of randomly placed markup symbols). It takes minutes to parse few kb of such random text.
Is it something wrong with my grammar or I should use some other kind of parser for this task?
回答1:
If one thing includes another, then normally you treat them as separate tokens and then nest them in the grammar. Lepl (http://www.acooke.org/lepl which I wrote) and PyParsing (which is probably the most popular pure-Python parser) both allow you to nest things recursively.
So in Lepl you could write code something like:
# these are tokens (defined as regexps)
stg_marker = Token(r'\*\*')
emp_marker = Token(r'\*') # tokens are longest match, so strong is preferred if possible
spo_marker = Token(r'%%')
....
# grammar rules combine tokens
contents = Delayed() # this will be defined later and lets us recurse
strong = stg_marker + contents + stg_marker
emphasis = emp_marker + contents + emp_marker
spoiler = spo_marker + contents + spo_marker
other_stuff = .....
contents += strong | emphasis | spoiler | other_stuff # this defines contents recursively
Then you can see, I hope, how contents will match nested use of strong, emphasis, etc.
There's much more than this to do for your final solution, and efficiency could be an issue in any pure-Python parser (There are some parsers that are implemented in C but callable from Python. These will be faster, but may be trickier to use; I can't recommend any because I haven't used them).
来源：https://stackoverflow.com/questions/3535706/implementing-parser-for-markdown-like-language