Some Object Relational Mapping (ORM) frameworks (such as LLBLGen) allow you to specify "predicate" parameters to the query methods, such as (simplified a bit):
var entities = adapter.FetchEntities(EntityType.Employee,
EmployeeFields.Salary > 50000);
How does that 2nd parameter work syntactically in C#? It kind of looks like a lambda expression, but it doesn't have the parameter part or the "=>". What is it? May need Jon Skeet for this one.
If you overloaded the ">" operator to return some kind of predicate object on your special "SuperDatabaseMapField" type, you could do such things.
That said, it seems vastly inferior in every way to taking a lambda expression instead (and parsing an expression tree if you have to.)
I agree with mquander's answer. The reason such a construct works is because of the way compilers evaluate expressions. In this case for LLBLGen, the second parameter expects something that can be evaluated to a boolean (for instance).
Operators (+, -, ***, /) are merely expressions that the compiler uses to build syntax trees which it uses to validate if certain combinations of left and right expressions are valid given the context ("+"). For instance a (string literal) + 2.4 (float) is obviously not valid in C#, and the compiler knows this from validating the expressions (string) (operator_add) (float).
Therefore, in order to make an odd scenario like the following work:
FetchEntities(EntityType.Employee,
EmployeeFields.Salary > ((EmployeeFields.DateOfBirth - 10) * 1.2) + 1024)
it would be necessary to overload the operators (- and *** and +) to return a new "predicate" object.
Ultimately such a statement would be translated into the following syntax tree (items in "()" are expression types for the purpose of this answer)
(BinaryComparison)
LeftSide: (Field_Reference) --> EmployeeFields.Salary
RightSide:
(MathematicOperator)
LeftSide:
(MathematicOperator)
LeftSide:
(MathematicOperator)
LeftSide: (Field_Reference) --> EmployeeFields.DateOfBirth
RightSide: (constant) --> 10
Operator: --> -
RightSide: (constant) --> 1.2
Operator: --> ***
RightSide: (constant) --> 1024
Operator: --> +
Operator: --> >
This is the whole basis on how things like lambda expressions and fluent query works. It all boils down to expression evaluation.
Lambda expressions are more... expressive in that they can touch objects and their fields and properties and methods and allow an arbitrary length syntax tree to be formed.
Related
How can I validate NCalc expression? I want to use NCalc for evaluating if/else/endif condition in my simple custom language for defining sequence of steps. Main program will provide some parameters for conditions. Sequences are defined by user, so my parser have to validate if condition is ok and uses only provided parameters.
I already tried some tests, but don't know how to do this. HasErrors() methods doesn't check used parameters. Evaluate() uses optimalizations, so if I write expression "true or XXXX", it will end with true result and doesn't find out that XXXX parameter is invalid. How can I do this? I want to validate it already in compilation time.
Thanks.
I found the answer in this question (marked as answer), maybe I should have used also other keywords in google.
Get the parameters in an expression using NCalc
I tested that solution with my visitor based on LogicalExpressionVisitor and it's working. But, theoretically, maybe it's not the same as validation, because I get the list of parameter names, but from parsed expression, without supplied parameter values. So maybe the expression can fail in case of special "bad" parameter values supplied for evaluation. But it's enough for my case, I know all parameters I will supply to expression, so for me it's enough to get just parameter names.
I am new to c#. I have a question about parsing a string. If i have a file that contains dome lines such as PC: SWITCH_A == ON or a string like PC: defined(SWITCH_B) && SWITCH_C == OFF. All the operators(==, &&, defined) are string here and all the switch names(SWITCH_A) and their values are identifiers(OFF). How do i parse these kind of string? Do i first have to tokenize them split them by new lines or white spaces and then make an abstract syntax tree for parsing them? Also do i need to store all the identifiers in a dictionary first? I have no idea about parsing can anyone help? an tell me with an example how to do it what should be the methods and classes that should be included? Thanks.
Unfortunately, Yes. You have to tokenize them if the syntax that you are parsing is something custom and not a standard syntax where a compiler already exists for parsing the source.
You could take advantage of Expression Trees. They are there in the .NET Framework for building and evaluating dynamic languages.
To start parsing the syntax you have to have a grammar document that describes all the possible cases of the syntax in each line. After that, you can start parsing the lines and building your expression tree.
Parsing any source code typically goes a character at a time since each character might change the entire semantics of the piece that is being parsed.
So, i suggest you start with a grammar document for the syntax that you have and then start writing your parser.
Make sure that there isn't anything already out there for the syntax you are trying to parse as these kind of projects tend to be error-prone and time consuming
Now since your high-level grammar is
Expression ::= Identifier | IntegerValue | BooleanExpression
Identifier and IntegerValue are constant literals in the source, so you need to start looking for a BooleanExpression.
To find a BooleanExpression you need to look for either BooleanBinaryExpression, BooleanUnaryExpression, TrueExpression or FalseExpression.
You can detect a BooleanBinaryExpression by look for the && or == operators and then taking the left and right operands.
To detect a BooleanUnaryExpression you need to look for the word defined and then parse the identifier in the parantheses.
And so on...
Notice that your grammar supports recursion in the syntax, look at the definition of the AndExpression or EqualsExpression, they point back to Expression
AndExpression ::= Expression '&&' Expression
EqualsExpression ::= Expression '==' Expression
You got a bunch of methods in the String Class in the .NET Framework to assist you in detecting and parsing your grammar.
Another alternative is that you can look for a parser generator that targets c#. For example, see ANTLR
I am trying to implement a wildcard search Functionlity for (*,?) using LINQ to SQL. As of now, I want to try it using Regular expression as the code we write will be short and easily manageable. Here is what I have
string kw=_keyword.Replace("*",".*").Replace("?",".");
var predicate = PredicateBuilder.True<DAL.RequestAttribute>();
Regex reg=new Regex("^"+kw+"$");
predicate=predicate &&(reg.IsMatch(ra=>ra.AttributeValue));
So, here it gives a compilation error as "Cannot convert lambda expression to type 'string' because it is not a delegate type"
Though some workarounds if I make it compile and run, I get this runtime Error
"Method 'Boolean IsMatch(System.String)' has no supported translation to SQL."
So, I have two Questions here
1. Am I thinking in right lanes to implement my wildcard using Regular Expressions? if not, which is more efficient way to do this?
2. How to resolve this error .
Thanks
You could mimic SQL's LIKE operator by using SqlMethods.Like: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.data.linq.sqlclient.sqlmethods.like%28v=vs.110%29.aspx.
Just be sure to use the appropriate wildcards/tokens: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms179859.aspx.
Update:
You cannot use regular expressions with simple SQL. Since you are essentially building a SQL statement via LINQ, the same rule applies. Though, it's still not quite clear where you are tapping into LINQ with the sample code you've provided.
I would typically expect to see something like the following:
var results =
from Something in SomeLinqContext
where SqlMethods.Like(Something.Value, kw);
After some research I found an answer to my question. Thanks to Ventaur for the Suggestion. the solution is on similar lines but just a bit different. PFB the code for it
string kw=_keyword.Replace("*","%").Replace("?","_");
var predicate = PredicateBuilder.True<DAL.RequestAttribute>();
predicate = (ra => SqlMethods.Like(ra.AttributeValue, kw) && <Any other boolean conditions>
Therefore it boils down to how to make an expression out of SQLMethods.like method using our predicate builder class.
I have a search criteria stored in a string:
string Searchstr = "(r.Value.Contains("PwC") || (r.Value.Contains("Canadian") && r.Value.Contains("thrive"))) || (r.Value.Contains("Banana") && r.Value.Contains("Gayle"))"
I want to use this in a If statement to check the values:
if(searchstr)
{
then do this....
}
but the if should have a searchstr as boolean.
How to convert this to boolean?
EDIT: The requirement is to give search criteria dynamically in a text box in the following format - "PwC OR (Canadian AND thrive)".
Which will be used to search an XML file.
Therefore I have loaded an XML file and want to have a Where condition in LINQ for which I need to use Dynamic LINQ but string is not allowed in that and also I have some braces to deal with.
Thinking of that I have taken the resultset from the XML(The tag value which i need to search)
var selectedBook = from r in document.Root.Descendants("Archives").Elements("Headline").Elements("Para")
select r;
and would ideally like to try something like:
var query=selectedbook.Where(searchstr)
OR
if(searchstr){....then do this}
You will need to do a bit of work to make this happen, but it is possible.
You should have a look at the dynamic LINQ library. This allows you to specify LINQ conditions (and other clauses) as strings and execute them just like LINQ operators.
Start with the explanation on ScottGu's blog and follow the links:
http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2008/01/07/dynamic-linq-part-1-using-the-linq-dynamic-query-library.aspx
I'm assuming the string is going to reference only a specific set of objects (r or r.Value in this case, for example - or anything else you want, as long as you know it beforehand). If this is the case, then:
Create a delegate that takes the objects (that may be referenced) as parameters
and returns a bool, as you want.
Programmatically write a small C# source file in memory that defines the query
as the body of a method (with a fixed name, preferably) that conforms to the delegate specified above.
Use the CSharpCodeProvider class to compile an assembly
with your custom function that returns the bool you want.
Run the dynamically written and compiled code from your main program.
Well as you may guess it is not going to be straight forward but at the same time it is not as hard a problem as it seems
You can perform a few steps to get what you want:
Get the search expression as input (for e.g. "PwC OR (Canadian AND thrive)")
Write an extension method on XElement that returns true and takes the search criteria as input. You will then be able to use
var selectedBook = from r in
document.Root.Descendants("Archives").Elements("Headline").Elements("Para")
where r.SatisfiesCriteria(searchCriteria)
select r;
Write a parser class that parses searchCritera and stores it in parsed format. (for e.g. you can convert it into postfix notation). This is quite easy and you can use standard algorithm for this. For your purpose OR, AND will be operators and PwC etc. will be operands. Parenthesis will get removed as part of parsing.
Now simply invoke this parser from with in your extension method and then evaluate the postfix expression you get. This again can be done through standard stack based evaluation. Infact it would be better if you parse the criteria once and then only evaluate in where. While evaluating you need to replace the operands with r.Value.Contains
It seems like a good scenario for http://scriptcs.net/
I'm looking to write a Truth Table Generator as a personal project.
There are several web-based online ones here and here.
(Example screenshot of an existing Truth Table Generator)
I have the following questions:
How should I go about parsing expressions like: ((P => Q) & (Q => R)) => (P => R)
Should I use a parser generator like ANTLr or YACC, or use straight regular expressions?
Once I have the expression parsed, how should I go about generating the truth table? Each section of the expression needs to be divided up into its smallest components and re-built from the left side of the table to the right. How would I evaluate something like that?
Can anyone provide me with tips concerning the parsing of these arbitrary expressions and eventually evaluating the parsed expression?
This sounds like a great personal project. You'll learn a lot about how the basic parts of a compiler work. I would skip trying to use a parser generator; if this is for your own edification, you'll learn more by doing it all from scratch.
The way such systems work is a formalization of how we understand natural languages. If I give you a sentence: "The dog, Rover, ate his food.", the first thing you do is break it up into words and punctuation. "The", "SPACE", "dog", "COMMA", "SPACE", "Rover", ... That's "tokenizing" or "lexing".
The next thing you do is analyze the token stream to see if the sentence is grammatical. The grammar of English is extremely complicated, but this sentence is pretty straightforward. SUBJECT-APPOSITIVE-VERB-OBJECT. This is "parsing".
Once you know that the sentence is grammatical, you can then analyze the sentence to actually get meaning out of it. For instance, you can see that there are three parts of this sentence -- the subject, the appositive, and the "his" in the object -- that all refer to the same entity, namely, the dog. You can figure out that the dog is the thing doing the eating, and the food is the thing being eaten. This is the semantic analysis phase.
Compilers then have a fourth phase that humans do not, which is they generate code that represents the actions described in the language.
So, do all that. Start by defining what the tokens of your language are, define a base class Token and a bunch of derived classes for each. (IdentifierToken, OrToken, AndToken, ImpliesToken, RightParenToken...). Then write a method that takes a string and returns an IEnumerable'. That's your lexer.
Second, figure out what the grammar of your language is, and write a recursive descent parser that breaks up an IEnumerable into an abstract syntax tree that represents grammatical entities in your language.
Then write an analyzer that looks at that tree and figures stuff out, like "how many distinct free variables do I have?"
Then write a code generator that spits out the code necessary to evaluate the truth tables. Spitting IL seems like overkill, but if you wanted to be really buff, you could. It might be easier to let the expression tree library do that for you; you can transform your parse tree into an expression tree, and then turn the expression tree into a delegate, and evaluate the delegate.
Good luck!
I think a parser generator is an overkill. You could use the idea of converting an expression to postfix and evaluating postfix expressions (or directly building an expression tree out of the infix expression and using that to generate the truth table) to solve this problem.
As Mehrdad mentions you should be able to hand roll the parsing in the same time as it would take to learn the syntax of a lexer/parser. The end result you want is some Abstract Syntax Tree (AST) of the expression you have been given.
You then need to build some input generator that creates the input combinations for the symbols defined in the expression.
Then iterate across the input set, generating the results for each input combo, given the rules (AST) you parsed in the first step.
How I would do it:
I could imagine using lambda functions to express the AST/rules as you parse the tree, and building a symbol table as you parse, you then could build the input set, parsing the symbol table to the lambda expression tree, to calculate the results.
If your goal is processing boolean expressions, a parser generator and all the machinery that go with is a waste of time, unless you want to learn how they work (then any of them would be fine).
But it is easy to build a recursive-descent parser by hand for boolean expressions, that computes and returns the results of "evaluating" the expression. Such a parser could be used on a first pass to determine the number of unique variables, where "evaluation" means "couunt 1 for each new variable name".
Writing a generator to produce all possible truth values for N variables is trivial; for each set of values, simply call the parser again and use it to evaluate the expression, where evaluate means "combine the values of the subexpressions according to the operator".
You need a grammar:
formula = disjunction ;
disjunction = conjunction
| disjunction "or" conjunction ;
conjunction = term
| conjunction "and" term ;
term = variable
| "not" term
| "(" formula ")" ;
Yours can be more complicated, but for boolean expressions it can't be that much more complicated.
For each grammar rule, write 1 subroutine that uses a global "scan" index into the string being parsed:
int disjunction()
// returns "-1"==> "not a disjunction"
// in mode 1:
// returns "0" if disjunction is false
// return "1" if disjunction is true
{ skipblanks(); // advance scan past blanks (duh)
temp1=conjunction();
if (temp1==-1) return -1; // syntax error
while (true)
{ skipblanks();
if (matchinput("or")==false) return temp1;
temp2= conjunction();
if (temp2==-1) return temp1;
temp1=temp1 or temp2;
}
end
int term()
{ skipblanks();
if (inputmatchesvariablename())
{ variablename = getvariablenamefrominput();
if unique(variablename) then += numberofvariables;
return lookupvariablename(variablename); // get truthtable value for name
}
...
}
Each of your parse routines will be about this complicated. Seriously.
You can get source code of pyttgen program at http://code.google.com/p/pyttgen/source/browse/#hg/src It generates truth tables for logical expressions. Code based on ply library, so its very simple :)