Phrase_from_file vs phrase

Actually I was considering something like your suggestion. But then opted in favour of [Sep] because I did not want to introduce just one smallish rule. In fact, my dcg’s will end-up with a lot “business related” rules, so this separator is a very low-level implementation detail.

At the origin of my post was the frustration that my DCG was working differently when using phrase vs. phrase_from_file.
But this conversation led me to a better understanding of this matter, and I acknowledge that I should go with the codes rather than the chars. I will adapt my DCGs accordingly.
Thanks you so much for your insights.

By the way, I looked up the code of phrase_from_file/3 in module pure_input.
As I understand the code, the actual reading of the file is done in a clause attr_unify_hook_ndebug/2 attached as a handler to an attributed var.
The relevant code there is

attr_unify_hook_ndebug(State, Value) :-
   State = lazy_input(Stream, _PrevPos, Pos, Read),
   (   var(Read)
   ->  fill_buffer(Stream),
       read_pending_codes(Stream, NewList, Tail),
       (   Tail == []
       ->  nb_setarg(4, State, []),
           Value = []
       ;   stream_to_lazy_list(Stream, Pos, Tail),
           nb_linkarg(4, State, NewList),
           Value = NewList
       )
   ;   Value = Read
   )

Besides read_pending_codes/3 used in this clause, prolog has a read_pending_chars/3
So changing the behaviour of phrase_from_file, should one consider to do so, would be to pass an additional option from phrase_from_file/3 down the line to the attribute hook.

Please do not do that.

What is your argumentation for not doing this?
My argumentation for doing it, would be:

  • a user of module pure_input should be given a choice, because both methods for reading a file(codes vs chars) do exist in the surrounding environment
  • obviously, any change must not influence existing user code; hence an additional option, with a default value to codes
  • implementation should be done in a way to not hit the performance when reading codes

I studied your code, and this has been of great inspiration to me.
But may I ask: why are you using the combination “read_stream_to_codes(…), phrase(…)” rather than phrase_from_file?

Good question.

In one place I read that all JSON line ends have to have both the CR and LF. Without newline(posix) IIRC the CR is dropped and thus the JSON is considered invalid. See: Preserving CR with LF when converting text files to character codes

However in looking at the JSON spec, it seems that the CR is not required so I will have to see if my parser is following the correct spec.

But you are correct that in most places I would simply use phrase_from_file/2,3 and you could use it in your code.


In an eariler version of this post I noted optimizations as the reason for not using phrase_from_file/2,3 but have since rewrote that part; so leaving this part as it is still of use with regards to DCGs in general.

If you read my example JSON parser (post) and notes you will see that my example code has some optimizations that I should not have done during development per my rules of development.

object([0'{|T1],T) -->
   "{",
   (
      'ws*'(T1,[0'}|T])
   ;
      'member_first'(T1,[0'}|T])
   ).

Just curious, for what kind of JSON parsing did you need this code? How is the JSON support that comes with SWI-Prolog not fitting your use case? Is it something about how the JSON maps to Prolog terms?

When I wrote the parser it was to better understand the intricacies of what is valid JSON for use with Cytoscape.js (ref), but then I found JSONLint (ref).

Now that I know the JSON needed for Cytoscape.js, the JSON should not pass a simple JSONLint (syntax), but pass a more complex set of rules (semantics).

While JSON provides a syntactic framework for data interchange, unambiguous data interchange also requires agreement between producer and consumer on the semantics of a specific use of the JSON syntax. (Spec)

Specifically for Cytoscape.js this implies that there should be a JSON recognizer (semantics) for the elements, style and layout. (ref) But the JSON recognizer will not recognize the syntax of JSON, but the semantics of each JSON file.

SWI-Prolog can check the syntax of JSON, but AFAIK there is no predicate to check the semantics. Such a check would probably need something like a DTD. I did find JSON Schema but have not looked at it beyond finding it. I would not be surprised if Jan W. tells me how it is done, but it was not apparent to me when I searched. :frowning_face: While I could ask, I find that taking the time to do the search and understand the predicates I found when searching makes it much easier to understand the responses from others when asking, e.g. Is there a way to go from HTML to the Prolog representation of the HTML? before asking I was researching quasi-quotations. (ref) I just did not see the connection.

No, as noted it is about the difference between syntax versus semantics and the need for something like a DTD for the semantics.

For something similar see the ini files used with ODBC connections. ini file type specifies the syntax but not the semantics. (ref)

Shouldn’t this be

sep(/) --> `/`.

unless the double_quotes flag is set?

As a matter of fact, you can use string literals in DCG rules. With vanilla SWI-Prolog (version 8.3.7, but this has worked for years now):

?- phrase(`foo`, X).
X = [102, 111, 111].

?- phrase("foo", X).
X = [102, 111, 111].

It correctly doesn’t work the other way:

?- [user].
|: x --> "foo".
|: ^D% user://1 compiled 0.02 sec, 1 clauses
true.

?- phrase(x, `foo`).
true.

?- phrase(x, "foo").
ERROR: Type error: `list' expected, found `"foo"' (a string)
...

EDIT: somewhere towards the bottom of the manual page on strings:

We observe that in many programs, most strings are only handled as a single unit during their lifetime. Examining real code tells us that double quoted strings typically appear in one of the following roles:

A DCG literal
Although represented as a list of codes is the correct representation for handling in DCGs, the DCG translator can recognise the literal and convert it to the proper representation. Such code need not be modified.

1 Like

This

 `hello world|Tail`

is not valid syntax for read/1. It is just used by library(portray_text) to indicate that a list of code points ends in the variable Tail. We could of course add it to the syntax, though using a backslash for disambiguation.

`hello world\|Tail`

I think this makes sense but I think it is not a big enough improvement to justify the incompatibility and difficulties handling this correctly in (IDE) tools. We have partial evaluation of phrase("hello world", List, Tail) as an acceptable and portable alternative.

I did not get to doing due diligence with

`hello world\|Tail`

and did think it odd that the operator | would be recognized as an operator and not text in a form of quoted text.

I agree that it should not be added.

See

phrase_from_file loads lazily. It has an attributed variable, when you try to unify it it fires off
a goal that loads more text. This kinda-sorta works.

@jan - would it make sense to have a non-lazy phrase_from_file that supported the current line/char reporting? I usually am using phrase_from_file not because it’s lazy but because it supports line tracking, which is pretty much always needed - you will eventually have to deal iwth invalid files,
and ‘not valid’ is rarely the right error message.

I did some more research on that topic and found an excellent tutorial on DCGs from Markus Triska.
In the section about reading from files, he kind of recommends to set double_quotes to char, which will not work with SWI, as we learned in this thread.
In the same section, he references a “pure io” library from Ulrich Neumerkel (http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/ulrich/Prolog-inedit/sicstus/pio.pl).
Interestingly Neumerkel’s library “auto-adjusts” to codes vs chars:

phrase_from_file(NT__0, File) :-
   current_prolog_flag(double_quotes, Value),
   (  Value == chars -> R_3 = get_pending_chars % recommended
   ;  Value == codes -> R_3 = get_pending_codes % suboptimal
   ;  must_be(Value, oneof([chars,codes]), phrase_from_file(NT__0, File), 0)
   ),
   phrase_of_from_file(NT__0, R_3, File).

Later on, R_3 is used as a pointer to the actual reading routine:

reader_step(R_3, Stream, Pos, Xs0) :-
   set_stream_position(Stream, Pos),
   (  at_end_of_stream(Stream)
   -> Xs0 = []
   ;  % phrase(call(call(R_3,Stream)), Xs0,Xs), % conforming call
      call(R_3, Stream, Xs0,Xs), % effective call
      reader_to_lazy_list(R_3, Stream, Xs)
   ).

Annie, what’s wrong with laziness. Actually I consider this a quality.
Should’nt we all be lazy, and aren’t we using Prolog because we want to be lazy?

1 Like

well, I too love laziness, but it conflicts with the goal of not causing bafflement when used with library(dcg/basics)

However if your goal is to reduce programming work, then Definitely - SWI-Prolog.

I was about to bring this up; I thought it isn’t relevant, but apparently it is.

There was some ideological struggle about this at some point of time. I definitely did not understand what it is about, exactly, but the take-home message for me was that it was indeed about ideology and not technology only.

Up until about three years ago (when I stopped wasting time on Stackoverflow) there was also a clique of high-rep prolific answerers on the [prolog] tag; they would always recommend to use chars and set certain global flags and so on. Those would fix some “defects” and break other things at the same time, thus creating some confusion that still persists.

Just to give you some context.

PS: this all was somehow entangled with discussions about purity and ISO standardization and compliance. It was strange.

1 Like

Well, the only thing that works is unifying the lazy list with either [_|_] or []. This is what DCGs do as long as you do not start dirty hacking, so there is not much of a problem. Things go wrong if you write e.g.

at_eof(End,End) :- End == [].

or the application expects the 3rd argument of phrase/2 to be a list and call e.g., length/2 on it.

Not that much. The way it works is a little tricky. When asked for the position it scans the list forward to the attributed variable. There it finds the position info for the start of the current block that enables it to compute the position for the current point in the list. This works fairly well as the amount to scan is just one block. Doing this without the lazy stuff simply means do the position calculation from the beginning of the list. If the list is long that gets pretty expensive …

That makes some sense, but unlike SICStus, most of SWI-Prolog syntax changes are module local. This holds for operators, but also the double_quotes flag. So, this can work but handling the module context correctly gets pretty hairy if you want to put DCGs in modules. The module-local syntax for double_quotes is intended to allow for using (typically ugly) code that relies all over the place on “” to be a list of character codes (chars).

One of the nasty issues with the code/chars is that your entire application has to agree if text is passed as lists between components. As most existing components are written with codes in mind, I think it is best to stick with codes and improve the environment to make working with them as pleasant as possible. With the development of SWI-7 I’ve considered adding code as a primary type. That would have solved this issue, but it became to complicated and expensive and I dropped the idea.