Chapter 3

Describing Syntax
and Semantics
Chapter 3 Topics

• Introduction
• The General Problem of Describing Syntax
• Formal Methods of Describing Syntax
• Attribute Grammars
• Describing the Meanings of Programs:
Dynamic Semantics

Copyright © 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-2

Introduction

• Syntax: the form or structure of the

expressions, statements, and program
units
• Semantics: the meaning of the expressions,
statements, and program units
• Syntax and semantics provide a language’s
definition
– Users of a language definition
• Other language designers
• Implementers
• Programmers (the users of the language)

Copyright © 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-3

The General Problem of Describing
Syntax: Terminology

• A sentence is a string of characters over

some alphabet

• A language is a set of sentences

• A lexeme is the lowest level syntactic unit

of a language (e.g., *, sum, begin)

• A token is a category of lexemes (e.g.,

identifier)
Copyright © 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-4
Java Statement
index=2*count+20;
Lexemes Tokens
index identifier
= equal_sign
2 int_literal
* mult_op
count identifier
+ plus_op
20 int_literal
; semicolon

Copyright © 2012 Pearson Education. All rights reserved. 1-5

Formal Definition of Languages

• Recognizers
– A recognition device reads input strings over the alphabet
of the language and decides whether the input strings
belong to the language
– Example: syntax analysis part of a compiler
- Detailed discussion of syntax analysis appears in
Chapter 4

• Generators
– A device that generates sentences of a language
– One can determine if the syntax of a particular sentence
is syntactically correct by comparing it to the structure of
the generator

Copyright © 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-6

BNF and Context-Free Grammars

• Context-Free Grammars
– Developed by Noam Chomsky in the mid-1950s
– Language generators, meant to describe the
syntax of natural languages
– Define a class of languages called context-free
languages

• Backus-Naur Form (1959)

– Invented by John Backus to describe the syntax
of Algol 58
– BNF is equivalent to context-free grammars
Copyright © 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-7
BNF Fundamentals

• In BNF, abstractions are used to represent classes

of syntactic structures--they act like syntactic
variables (also called nonterminal symbols, or just
terminals)

• Terminals are lexemes or tokens

• A rule has a left-hand side (LHS), which is a

nonterminal, and a right-hand side (RHS), which is
a string of terminals and/or nonterminals

Copyright © 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-8

BNF Fundamentals (continued)
• Nonterminals are often enclosed in angle brackets

– Examples of BNF rules:

<ident_list> → identifier | identifier, <ident_list>
<if_stmt> → if <logic_expr> then <stmt>

<if_stmt> → if <logic_expr> then <stmt>

<if_stmt> → if (<logic_expr>) <stmt> else <stmt>

<if_stmt> → if <logic_expr> then <stmt>

| if (<logic_expr>) <stmt> else <stmt>

• Grammar: a finite non-empty set of rules

• A start symbol is a special element of the nonterminals of a

grammar

Copyright © 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-9

BNF Rules

• An abstraction (or nonterminal symbol)

can have more than one RHS
<stmt>  <single_stmt>
| begin <stmt_list> end

Copyright © 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-10

Describing Lists

• Syntactic lists are described using

recursion
<ident_list>  ident
| ident, <ident_list>

• A derivation is a repeated application of

rules, starting with the start symbol and
ending with a sentence (all terminal
symbols)

Copyright © 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-11

An Example Grammar
<program>  <stmts>
<stmts>  <stmt> | <stmt> ; <stmts>
<stmt>  <var> = <expr>
<var>  a | b | c | d
<expr>  <term> + <term> | <term> - <term>
<term>  <var> | const

<program> => <stmts> => <stmt>

=> <var> = <expr>
=> a = <expr>
=> a = <term> + <term>
=> a = <var> + <term>
=> a = b + <term>
=> a = b + const
Copyright © 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-12
An Example Derivation

<program> => <stmts> => <stmt>

=> <var> = <expr>
=> a = <expr>
=> a = <term> + <term>
=> a = <var> + <term>
=> a = b + <term>
=> a = b + const

Copyright © 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-13

Derivations

• Every string of symbols in a derivation is a

sentential form
• A sentence is a sentential form that has
only terminal symbols
• A leftmost derivation is one in which the
leftmost nonterminal in each sentential
form is the one that is expanded
• A derivation may be neither leftmost nor
rightmost

Copyright © 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-14

Derivation Example
A grammar for Expressions simple assignment
statement whose right hand sides (RHS) are arithmetic
expression with multiplication and addition operators
and parantheses.
<assign> -> <id>=<expr>
<id>->A|B|C
<expr>-><id>+<expr>
| (<expr>)
| <id>*<expr>
| <id> Statement A = B * (A + C)

Copyright © 2012 Pearson Education. All rights reserved. 1-15

Derivation Example (cont.)
Leftmost Derivation: Statement A = B * (A + C )

<assign> => <id>=<expr>

=> A =<expr>
=> A =<id> * <expr>
=> A = B * <expr>
=> A = B * (<expr>)
=> A = B * (<id>+<expr>)
=> A = B * (A+<expr>)
=> A = B * (A+<id>)
=> A = B * (A+C)

Copyright © 2012 Pearson Education. All rights reserved. 1-16

Parse Tree

• A hierarchical representation of a derivation

<program>

<stmts>

<stmt>

<var> = <expr>

a <term> + <term>

<var> const

b
Copyright © 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-17
Ambiguity in Grammars

• A grammar is ambiguous if and only if it

generates a sentential form that has two
or more distinct parse trees

Copyright © 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-18

An Ambiguous Expression Grammar

<expr>  <expr> <op> <expr> | const

<op>  / | -

<expr> <expr>

<expr> <op> <expr> <expr> <op> <expr>

<expr> <op> <expr> <expr> <op> <expr>

const - const / const const - const / const

Copyright © 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-19

An Unambiguous Expression Grammar

• If we use the parse tree to indicate

precedence levels of the operators, we
cannot have ambiguity
<expr>  <expr> - <term> | <term>
<term>  <term> / const| const

<expr>

<expr> - <term>

<term> <term> / const

const const
Copyright © 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-20
Associativity of Operators

• Operator associativity can also be indicated by a

grammar

<expr> -> <expr> + <expr> | const (ambiguous)

<expr> -> <expr> + const | const (unambiguous)

<expr>
<expr>

<expr> + const

<expr> + const

const
Copyright © 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-21
Extended BNF

• Optional parts are placed in brackets [ ]

<proc_call> -> ident [(<expr_list>)]
• Alternative parts of RHSs are placed
inside parentheses and separated via
vertical bars
<term> → <term> (+|-) const
• Repetitions (0 or more) are placed inside
braces { }
<ident> → letter {letter|digit}

Copyright © 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-22

BNF and EBNF
• BNF
<expr>  <expr> + <term>
| <expr> - <term>
| <term>
<term>  <term> * <factor>
| <term> / <factor>
| <factor>
• EBNF
<expr>  <term> {(+ | -) <term>}
<term>  <factor> {(* | /) <factor>}

Copyright © 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-23

Static Semantics

• Nothing to do with meaning

• Context-free grammars (CFGs) cannot
describe all of the syntax of programming
languages
• Categories of constructs that are trouble:
- Context-free, but cumbersome (e.g.,
types of operands in expressions)
- Non-context-free (e.g., variables must
be declared before they are used)
Copyright © 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-25
Attribute Grammars

• Attribute grammars (AGs) have additions

to CFGs to carry some semantic info on
parse tree nodes

• Primary value of AGs:

– Static semantics specification
– Compiler design (static semantics checking)

Copyright © 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-26

Attribute Grammars : Definition

• Def: An attribute grammar is a context-free

grammar G = (S, N, T, P) with the following
additions:
– For each grammar symbol x there is a set A(x)
of attribute values
– Each rule has a set of functions that define
certain attributes of the nonterminals in the rule
– Each rule has a (possibly empty) set of
predicates to check for attribute consistency

Copyright © 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-27

Attribute Grammars: Definition

• Let X0  X1 ... Xn be a rule

• Functions of the form S(X0) = f(A(X1), ... ,
A(Xn)) define synthesized attributes
• Functions of the form I(Xj) = f(A(X0), ... ,
A(Xn)), for i <= j <= n, define inherited
attributes
• Initially, there are intrinsic attributes on the
leaves

Copyright © 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-28

Attribute Grammars: An Example

• Syntax
<assign> -> <var> = <expr>
<expr> -> <var> + <var> | <var>
<var> A | B | C
• actual_type: synthesized for <var>
and <expr>
• expected_type: inherited for <expr>

Copyright © 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-29

Attribute Grammar (continued)

• Syntax rule: <expr>  <var>[1] + <var>[2]

Semantic rules:
<expr>.actual_type  <var>[1].actual_type
Predicate:
<var>[1].actual_type == <var>[2].actual_type
<expr>.expected_type == <expr>.actual_type

• Syntax rule: <var>  id

Semantic rule:
<var>.actual_type  lookup (<var>.string)

Copyright © 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-30

Attribute Grammars (continued)

• How are attribute values computed?

– If all attributes were inherited, the tree could be
decorated in top-down order.
– If all attributes were synthesized, the tree could
be decorated in bottom-up order.
– In many cases, both kinds of attributes are used,
and it is some combination of top-down and
bottom-up that must be used.

Copyright © 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-31

Attribute Grammars (continued)

<expr>.expected_type  inherited from parent

<var>[1].actual_type  lookup (A)

<var>[2].actual_type  lookup (B)
<var>[1].actual_type =? <var>[2].actual_type

<expr>.actual_type  <var>[1].actual_type
<expr>.actual_type =? <expr>.expected_type

Copyright © 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-32

Summary

• BNF and context-free grammars are

equivalent meta-languages
– Well-suited for describing the syntax of
programming languages
• An attribute grammar is a descriptive
formalism that can describe both the
syntax and the semantics of a language
• Three primary methods of semantics
description
– Operation, axiomatic, denotational

Copyright © 2012 Addison-Wesley. All rights reserved. 1-60