gf-core/src-3.0/GF/GFCC/doc/gfcc.txt

The GFCC Grammar Format
Aarne Ranta
December 14, 2007

Author's address:
[``http://www.cs.chalmers.se/~aarne`` http://www.cs.chalmers.se/~aarne]

% to compile: txt2tags -thtml --toc gfcc.txt

History:
- 14 Dec 2007: simpler, Lisp-like concrete syntax of GFCC
- 5 Oct 2007: new, better structured GFCC with full expressive power
- 19 Oct: translation of lincats, new figures on C++
- 3 Oct 2006: first version


==What is GFCC==

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:
- compact grammar files and run-time objects
- time and space efficient processing
- simple definition of interpreters


Thus we also want to call GFCC the **portable grammar format**.

The idea is that all embedded GF applications use GFCC.
The GF system would be primarily used as a compiler and as a grammar
development tool.

Since GFCC is implemented in BNFC, a parser of the format is readily
available for C, C++, C#, Haskell, Java, and OCaml. Also an XML 
representation can be generated in BNFC. A 
[reference implementation ../]
of linearization and some other functions has been written in Haskell.


==GFCC vs. GFC==

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.

Actually, GFC is planned to be omitted also as the target format of
separate compilation, where plain GF (type annotated and partially evaluated)
will be used instead. GFC provides only marginal advantages as a target format
compared with GF, and it is therefore just extra weight to carry around this
format.

The main differences of GFCC compared with GFC (and GF) can be 
summarized as follows:
- there are no modules, and therefore no qualified names
- a GFCC grammar is multilingual, and consists of a common abstract syntax 
  together with one concrete syntax per language
- records and tables are replaced by arrays
- record labels and parameter values are replaced by integers
- record projection and table selection are replaced by array indexing
- even though the format does support dependent types and higher-order abstract
  syntax, there is no interpreted yet that does this



Here is an example of a GF grammar, consisting of three modules, 
as translated to GFCC. The representations are aligned; 
thus they do not completely
reflect the order of judgements in GFCC files, which have different orders of
blocks of judgements, and alphabetical sorting.
```  
                                    grammar Ex(Eng,Swe);

abstract Ex = {                     abstract {
  cat                                 cat
    S ; NP ; VP ;                      NP[]; S[]; VP[];
  fun                                 fun
    Pred : NP -> VP -> S ;             Pred=[(($ 0! 1),(($ 1! 0)!($ 0! 0)))];
    She, They : NP ;                   She=[0,"she"];
    Sleep : VP ;                       They=[1,"they"];
                                       Sleep=[["sleeps","sleep"]];
}                                     } ;
                                    
concrete Eng of Ex = {              concrete Eng {
  lincat                             lincat
    S  = {s : Str} ;                  S=[()];
    NP = {s : Str ; n : Num} ;        NP=[1,()];
    VP = {s : Num => Str} ;           VP=[[(),()]];
  param
    Num = Sg | Pl ;
  lin                                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} ;    They = [1, "they"];
    Sleep = {s = table {              Sleep=[["sleeps","sleep"]];
      Sg => "sleeps" ; 
      Pl => "sleep"                   
      }                               
    } ;
}                                   } ;

concrete Swe of Ex = {              concrete Swe {
  lincat                             lincat
    S  = {s : Str} ;                  S=[()];
    NP = {s : Str} ;                  NP=[()];
    VP = {s : Str} ;                  VP=[()];
  param
    Num = Sg | Pl ;
  lin                                lin
    Pred np vp = {                    Pred = [(($0!0),($1!0))];
      s = np.s ++ vp.s} ;
    She = {s = "hon"} ;               She = ["hon"];
    They = {s = "de"} ;               They = ["de"];
    Sleep = {s = "sover"} ;           Sleep = ["sover"];
}                                     } ;                                   
```

==The syntax of GFCC files==

The complete BNFC grammar, from which  
the rules in this section are taken, is in the file 
[``GF/GFCC/GFCC.cf`` ../DataGFCC.cf].


===Top level===

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.
```
  Grm. Grammar  ::= 
    "grammar" CId "(" [CId] ")" ";" 
    Abstract ";" 
    [Concrete] ;

  Abs. Abstract ::= 
    "abstract" "{" 
      "flags" [Flag] 
      "fun"   [FunDef] 
      "cat"   [CatDef] 
    "}" ;

  Cnc. Concrete ::= 
    "concrete" CId "{" 
      "flags"  [Flag] 
      "lin"    [LinDef] 
      "oper"   [LinDef] 
      "lincat" [LinDef] 
      "lindef" [LinDef] 
      "printname" [LinDef]
    "}" ;
```
This syntax organizes each module to a sequence of **fields**, such
as flags, linearizations, operations, linearization types, etc.
It is envisaged that particular applications can ignore some
of the fields, typically so that earlier fields are more
important than later ones.

The judgement forms have the following syntax.
```
  Flg. Flag     ::= CId "=" String ;
  Cat. CatDef   ::= CId "[" [Hypo] "]" ;
  Fun. FunDef   ::= CId ":" Type "=" Exp ;
  Lin. LinDef   ::= CId "=" Term ;
```
For the run-time system, the reference implementation in Haskell
uses a structure that gives efficient look-up:
```
  data GFCC = GFCC {
    absname   :: CId ,
    cncnames  :: [CId] ,
    abstract  :: Abstr ,
    concretes :: Map CId Concr
    }

  data Abstr = Abstr {
    aflags  :: Map CId String,     -- value of a flag
    funs    :: Map CId (Type,Exp), -- type and def of a fun
    cats    :: Map CId [Hypo],     -- context of a cat
    catfuns :: Map CId [CId]       -- funs yielding a cat (redundant, for fast lookup)
    }

  data Concr = Concr {
    flags   :: Map CId String, -- value of a flag
    lins    :: Map CId Term,   -- lin of a fun
    opers   :: Map CId Term,   -- oper generated by subex elim
    lincats :: Map CId Term,   -- lin type of a cat
    lindefs :: Map CId Term,   -- lin default of a cat
    printnames :: Map CId Term -- printname of a cat or a fun
    }
```
These definitions are from [``GF/GFCC/DataGFCC.hs`` ../DataGFCC.hs].

Identifiers (``CId``) are like ``Ident`` in GF, except that
the compiler produces constants prefixed with ``_`` in
the common subterm elimination optimization.
```
  token CId (('_' | letter) (letter | digit | '\'' | '_')*) ;
```


===Abstract syntax===

Types are first-order function types built from argument type
contexts and value types.
category symbols. Syntax trees (``Exp``) are
rose trees with nodes consisting of a head (``Atom``) and
bound variables (``CId``). 
```
  DTyp. Type  ::= "[" [Hypo] "]" CId [Exp] ;        
  DTr.  Exp   ::= "[" "(" [CId] ")" Atom [Exp] "]" ;
  Hyp.  Hypo  ::= CId ":" Type ;
```
The head Atom is either a function
constant, a bound variable, or a metavariable, or a string, integer, or float
literal.
```
  AC.   Atom  ::= CId ;
  AS.   Atom  ::= String ;
  AI.   Atom  ::= Integer ;
  AF.   Atom  ::= Double ;
  AM.   Atom  ::= "?" Integer ;
```
The context-free types and trees of the "old GFCC" are special
cases, which can be defined as follows:
```
  Typ.  Type  ::= [CId] "->" CId
  Typ args val = DTyp [Hyp (CId "_") arg | arg <- args] val

  Tr.   Exp   ::= "(" CId [Exp] ")"
  Tr fun exps  = DTr [] fun exps
```
To store semantic (``def``) definitions by cases, the following expression
form is provided, but it is only meaningful in the last field of a function
declaration in an abstract syntax:
```
  EEq. Exp      ::= "{" [Equation] "}" ;
  Equ. Equation ::= [Exp] "->" Exp ;
```
Notice that expressions are used to encode patterns. Primitive notions
(the default semantics in GF) are encoded as empty sets of equations
(``[]``). For a constructor (canonical form) of a category ``C``, we
aim to use the encoding as the application ``(_constr C)``.



===Concrete syntax===

Linearization terms (``Term``) are built as follows.
Constructor names are shown to make the later code
examples readable.
```
  R.  Term ::= "[" [Term] "]" ;        -- array (record/table)
  P.  Term ::= "(" Term "!" Term ")" ; -- access to field (projection/selection)
  S.  Term ::= "(" [Term] ")" ;        -- concatenated sequence
  K.  Term ::= Tokn ;                  -- token
  V.  Term ::= "$" Integer ;           -- argument (subtree)
  C.  Term ::= Integer ;               -- array index (label/parameter value)
  FV. Term ::= "[|" [Term] "|]" ;      -- free variation
  TM. Term ::= "?" ;                   -- linearization of metavariable
```
Tokens are strings or (maybe obsolescent) prefix-dependent
variant lists.
```
  KS.  Tokn     ::= String ;
  KP.  Tokn     ::= "[" "pre" [String] "[" [Variant] "]" "]" ;
  Var. Variant  ::= [String] "/" [String] ;
```
Two 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.
```
  F.  Term ::= CId ;                     -- global constant
  W.  Term ::= "(" String "+" Term ")" ; -- prefix + suffix table
```
There is also a deprecated form of "record parameter alias",
```
  RP. Term ::= "(" Term "@" Term ")";    -- DEPRECATED
```
which will be removed when the migration to new GFCC is complete.



==The semantics of concrete syntax terms==

The code in this section is from [``GF/GFCC/Linearize.hs`` ../Linearize.hs].


===Linearization and realization===

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.
```
  linExp :: GFCC -> CId -> Exp -> Term
  linExp gfcc lang tree@(DTr _ 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     -> TM
   where
     lin  = linExp gfcc lang
     comp = compute gfcc lang
     look = lookLin gfcc lang
```
TODO: bindings must be supported.

The result of linearization is usually a record, which is realized as
a string using the following algorithm.
```
  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
    TM       -> "?"
```
Notice that realization always picks the first field of a record.
If a linearization type has more than one field, the first field
does not necessarily contain the desired string.
Also notice that the order of record fields in GFCC is not necessarily
the same as in GF source.


===Term evaluation===

Evaluation follows call-by-value order, with two environments
needed:
- the grammar (a concrete syntax) to give the global constants
- an array of terms to give the subtree linearizations


The code is presented in one-level pattern matching, to
enable reimplementations in languages that do not permit
deep patterns (such as Java and C++).
```
compute :: GFCC -> CId -> [Term] -> Term -> Term
compute gfcc lang args = comp where
  comp trm = case trm of
    P r p  -> proj (comp r) (comp p)
    W s t  -> W s (comp t)
    R ts   -> R $ Prelude.map comp ts
    V i    -> idx args (fromInteger i)  -- already computed
    F c    -> comp $ look c             -- not computed (if contains V)
    FV ts  -> FV $ Prelude.map comp ts
    S ts   -> S $ Prelude.filter (/= S []) $ Prelude.map comp ts
    _ -> trm

  look = lookOper gfcc lang

  idx xs i = xs !! i

  proj r p = case (r,p) of
    (_,     FV ts) -> FV $ Prelude.map (proj r) ts
    (FV ts, _    ) -> FV $ Prelude.map (\t -> proj t p) ts
    (W s t, _)     -> kks (s ++ getString (proj t p))
    _              -> comp $ getField r (getIndex p)

  getString t = case t of
    K (KS s) -> s
    _ -> trace ("ERROR in grammar compiler: string from "++ show t) "ERR"

  getIndex t =  case t of
    C i    -> fromInteger i
    RP p _ -> getIndex p
    TM     -> 0  -- default value for parameter
    _ -> trace ("ERROR in grammar compiler: index from " ++ show t) 0

  getField t i = case t of
    R rs   -> idx rs i
    RP _ r -> getField r i
    TM     -> TM
    _ -> trace ("ERROR in grammar compiler: field from " ++ show t) t
```

===The special term constructors===

The three forms introduced by the compiler may a need special
explanation.

Global constants
```
  Term ::= CId ;
```
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.

**Prefix-suffix tables**
```
  Term ::= "(" String "+" Term ")" ; 
```
represent tables of word forms divided to the longest common prefix
and its array of suffixes. In the example grammar above, we have
```
  Sleep = [("sleep" + ["s",""])]
```
which in fact is equal to the array of full forms
```
  ["sleeps", "sleep"]
```
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
```
  "(" String "+" [String] ")"
```
since we want the suffix part to be a ``Term`` for the optimization to
take effect.



==Compiling to GFCC==

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.

The compilation phases are the following
+ type check and partially evaluate GF source
+ create a symbol table mapping the GF parameter and record types to
  fixed-size arrays, and parameter values and record labels to integers
+ traverse the linearization rules replacing parameters and labels by integers
+ reorganize the created GF grammar so that it has just one abstract syntax
  and one concrete syntax per language
+ TODO: apply UTF8 encoding to the grammar, if not yet applied (this is told by the
  ``coding`` flag)
+ translate the GF grammar object to a GFCC grammar object, using a simple
  compositional mapping
+ perform the word-suffix optimization on GFCC linearization terms
+ perform subexpression elimination on each concrete syntax module
+ print out the GFCC code




===Problems in GFCC compilation===

Two major problems had to be solved in compiling GF to GFCC:
- consistent order of tables and records, to permit the array translation
- run-time variables in complex parameter values.


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.

The order problem is solved in slightly different ways for tables and records.
In both cases, **eta expansion** is used to establish a
canonical order. Tables are ordered by applying the preorder induced
by ``param`` definitions. Records are ordered by sorting them by labels.
This means that
e.g. the ``s`` 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.

The canonical form of records is further complicated by lock fields,
i.e. dummy fields of form ``lock_C = <>``, 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 GF 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.

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
```
  Number = Sg | Pl ;
  Person = P1 | P2 | P3 ;
  Agr = Ag Number Person ;
```
The values can be translated to integers in the expected way,
```
  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
```
However, an argument of ``Agr`` can be a run-time variable, as in
```
  Ag np.n P3
```
This expression must first be translated to a case expression,
```
  case np.n of {
    0 => 2 ;
    1 => 5
    }
```
which can then be translated to the GFCC term
```
  ([2,5] ! ($0 ! $1))  
```
assuming that the variable ``np`` is the first argument and that its
``Number`` field is the second in the record.

This transformation of course has to be performed recursively, since
there can be several run-time variables in a parameter value:
```
  Ag np.n np.p
```
A similar transformation would be possible to deal with the double
role of parameter records discussed above. Thus the type
```
  RNP = {n : Number ; p : Person}
```
could be uniformly translated into the set ``{0,1,2,3,4,5}``
as ``Agr`` above. Selections would be simple instances of indexing.
But any projection from the record should be translated into
a case expression,
```
  rnp.n  ===> 
  case rnp of {
    0 => 0 ;
    1 => 0 ;
    2 => 0 ;
    3 => 1 ;
    4 => 1 ;
    5 => 1
    }
```
To avoid the code bloat resulting from this, we have chosen to
deal with records by a **currying** transformation:
```
  table {n : Number ; p : Person} {... ...}
   ===>
  table Number {Sg => table Person {...} ; table Person {...}}
```
This is performed when GFCC is generated. Selections with
records have to be treated likewise,
```
  t ! r   ===> t ! r.n ! r.p
```


===The representation of linearization types===

Linearization types (``lincat``) are not needed when generating with
GFCC, but they have been added to enable parser generation directly from
GFCC. The linearization type definitions are shown as a part of the
concrete syntax, by using terms to represent types. Here is the table
showing how different linearization types are encoded.
```
  P*                         = max(P)         -- parameter type
  {r1 : T1 ; ... ; rn : Tn}* = [T1*,...,Tn*]  -- record
  (P => T)*                  = [T* ,...,T*]   -- table, size(P) cases
  Str*                       = ()
```
For example, the linearization type ``present/CatEng.NP`` is
translated as follows:
```
  NP = {
    a : {                     -- 6 = 2*3 values
      n : {ParamX.Number} ;   -- 2 values
      p : {ParamX.Person}     -- 3 values
    } ;
    s : {ResEng.Case} => Str  -- 3 values
  }

  __NP = [[1,2],[(),(),()]]
```




===Running the compiler and the GFCC interpreter===

GFCC generation is a part of the 
[developers' version http://www.cs.chalmers.se/Cs/Research/Language-technology/darcs/GF/doc/darcs.html] 
of GF since September 2006. To invoke the compiler, the flag 
``-printer=gfcc`` to the command
``pm = print_multi`` is used. It is wise to recompile the grammar from
source, since previously compiled libraries may not obey the canonical
order of records. 
Here is an example, performed in
[example/bronzeage ../../../../../examples/bronzeage].
```
  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
```
There is also an experimental batch compiler, which does not use the GFC
format or the record aliases. It can be produced by
```
  make gfc
```
in ``GF/src``, and invoked by
```
  gfc --make FILES
```




==The reference interpreter==

The reference interpreter written in Haskell consists of the following files:
```
  -- source file for BNFC
  GFCC.cf       -- labelled BNF grammar of gfcc

  -- files generated by BNFC
  AbsGFCC.hs    -- abstrac syntax datatypes
  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   -- grammar datatype, post-parser grammar creation
  Linearize.hs  -- linearization and evaluation
  Macros.hs     -- utilities abstracting away from GFCC datatypes
  Generate.hs   -- random and exhaustive generation, generate-and-test parsing
  API.hs        -- functionalities accessible in embedded GF applications
  Generate.hs   -- random and exhaustive generation
  Shell.hs      -- main function - a simple command interpreter
```
It is included in the
[developers' version http://www.cs.chalmers.se/Cs/Research/Language-technology/darcs/GF/doc/darcs.html]
of GF, in the subdirectories [``GF/src/GF/GFCC`` ../] and 
[``GF/src/GF/Devel`` ../../Devel].

As of September 2007, default parsing in main GF uses GFCC (implemented by Krasimir
Angelov). The interpreter uses the relevant modules
```
  GF/Conversions/SimpleToFCFG.hs  -- generate parser from GFCC
  GF/Parsing/FCFG.hs              -- run the parser
```


To compile the interpreter, type
```
  make gfcc
```
in ``GF/src``. To run it, type
```
  ./gfcc <GFCC-file>
```
The available commands are
- ``gr <Cat> <Int>``:  generate a number of random trees in category.
  and show their linearizations in all languages
- ``grt <Cat> <Int>``:  generate a number of random trees in category.
  and show the trees and their linearizations in all languages
- ``gt <Cat> <Int>``:  generate a number of trees in category from smallest,
  and show their linearizations in all languages
- ``gtt <Cat> <Int>``:  generate a number of trees in category from smallest,
  and show the trees and their linearizations in all languages
- ``p <Lang> <Cat> <String>``: parse a string into a set of trees
- ``lin <Tree>``: linearize tree in all languages, also showing full records
- ``q``: terminate the system cleanly



==Embedded formats==

- JavaScript: compiler of linearization and abstract syntax

- Haskell: compiler of abstract syntax and interpreter with parsing,
  linearization, and generation

- C: compiler of linearization (old GFCC)

- C++: embedded interpreter supporting linearization (old GFCC)



==Some things to do==

Support for dependent types, higher-order abstract syntax, and
semantic definition in GFCC generation and interpreters.

Replacing the entire GF shell by one based on GFCC.

Interpreter in Java.

Hand-written parsers for GFCC grammars to reduce code size
(and efficiency?) of interpreters.

Binary format and/or 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).