Why Sponsor Oils? | source | all docs for version 0.24.0 | all versions | oilshell.org

Up to 4 Pretty Printers?

(March 2024)

Oils parses a lot of text, and it's becoming apparent than we need a print a lot too! The text should be nicely formatted because a shell is a user interface.

This doc describes 4 possible pretty printers in Oils. Traditional shells don't have appear to have any pretty printing.

Screenshots

Let's be concrete first, because there's a lot of brainstorming below.

YSH prints its JSON-like data structures with the = keyword, which takes a Python-like expression on the right:

Right now, it looks bad on big data structures. It should look something like nodejs or jq:

We may want to omit the quotes, like nodejs. (This syntax isn't meant to be parsed. JSON8 may have unquoted dict keys, although it's not essential).

Background - go fmt style versus PPL style

To back up a bit, I'm writing this doc organize my thoughts, and to explain problems and requirements to contributors.

There are at least two schools of thought on pretty printers, which this lobste.rs thread has a good discussion of:

• Why is Prettier Rock Solid? https://lobste.rs/s/aevptj/why_is_prettier_rock_solid
  • HN comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39437424. Aside: a top comment shows why we don't want to take responsibility for all formatting decisions in our OSH-YSH printer! Users are opinionated. The JavaScript formatter Prettier is criticized for a bug, and for being slow.

More comments on a blog post by Justin Pombrio (which I circulated):

• A Twist on Wadler's Printer https://lobste.rs/s/1r0aak/twist_on_wadler_s_printer

Let's call the two styles the "go fmt style" and the "PPL style" (functional pretty printing language).

I was probably "biased" toward go fmt, because the two formatters we actually use in Oils are influenced by it:

1. clang-format for our C++ code.
   • This is the best formatter I've used. It's fast, and e.g. does a good job on C macros.
2. yapf for our Python code.
   • It's intentionally a "clone" for clang-format. (It's slow, mostly due to being written in Python, and creating lots of tiny objects!)

(Details: they have line wrapping algorithms, while go fmt doesn't. I'm not calling them "graph search" printers, because I think of line wrapping as a subproblem of pretty printing.)

Why PPL style?

However, Justin's post helped me understand Wadler's printer, a popular example of the PPL style. This style might have some advantages for Oils:

• There's no user-provided layout for data structures — either YSH data or Zephyr ASDL data. So we need to synthesize a layout from scratch.
• We have multiple languages to format, and the PPL style separates policy (language rules) and mechanism (line wrapping). So we should try a more principled architecture, hopefully without sacrificing quality.
• The two styles may not be as distinct as they seem at first. They may be complementary.
  • We can probably use a PPL for the expression subproblem of the OSH-YSH shell formatter. The rest of the formatter will have rules that don't have to do with line wrapping (aligning EOL comments like go fmt does, etc.)
  • I think a non-wrapping pretty printer — an "indenter" — can use something similar to the PPL IRs. Notes below.
• PPLs could be slower (asymptotically and in practice) than the custom algorithms, but I think that can be solved with a simple rule in practice:
  1. Compute the total size of the data structure/doc up front.
  2. If it's small, spend extra time to make it look pretty, by using an expressive and slow PPL. We can be quadratic or worse, perhaps. We might want node.js-like columnar layout.
  3. If it's big, use a simple and fast PPL subset.

(Does that last idea work?)

Warning

Sometimes I pile on too many requirements, which I mentioned in the latest release announcement:

• Oils 0.20.0 > Why I'm Working on JSON

We should do the simplest things first, and I think the PPL approach will allow that.

BTW there are many threads on #data-languages on Zulip where I'm brainstorming and learning about pretty printing.

Four Printers - What and Why?

Here's a sketch of what I think we need. It goes from concrete → experimental and research-y.

Print YSH data types in a JSON-like format

What is it? This is the = keyword shown in the screenshots above. (BTW, Lua uses the same syntax = to evaluate expressions.)

Motivation: We should look as good as node.js or jq.

Currently we use our JSON printer with the options SHOW_NON_DATA | SHOW_CYCLES.

• SHOW_NOW_DATA prints non-data objects, like <Func 0x123>. This syntax can't be parsed.
• SHOW_CYCLES prints cycles with -->, instead of raising an error, like JSON does.

Example:

ysh$ var d = {}
ysh$ setvar d.eggex = /dot+/  # Eggex object

ysh$ = d
(Dict 0x7feb87cb4050)   {"eggex":<Eggex 0x7feb87dbfd00>}

ysh$ setvar d.cycle = d

ysh$ = d
(Dict 0x7feb87cb4050)   {"eggex":<Eggex 0x7feb87dbfd00>,"cycle":{ --> 0x7feb87cb4050 }}

We should replace this with a new pretty printer that wraps lines, and has COLOR.

Replace our ad hoc Zephyr ASDL pretty printer

What is it? Zephyr ASDL is the statically typed schema language we use to implement Oils. It's "one level down" from the shell.

We used it to define the syntax of shell with algebraic data types. We create a lossless syntax tree, which is also an IR for shell.

Motivation: We already wrote an ad hoc pretty printer, and it should be replaced! It tries to fit records on a single line, and if that fails, it uses multiple lines. I think it's slow.

If we already have a YSH data printer, this printer should "obviously" be unified with it. We should have a nice separation of policy and mechanism.

Use osh -n myscript.sh to see what it does:

Notes:

• The algorithm is in asdl/format.py, and the "homogeneous IR" is in asdl/hnode.asdl.
  • Each generated class definition has a PrettyTree() method, which converts the typed self or this to the homogeneous hnode tree.
  • AbbreviatedTree() is a bit like the modular printers discussed in the lobste.rs thread. It makes certain common data structures more readable, with type-specific logic. It's in Python only — can that logic also be in C++?
  • The syntax tree is actually a graph, and I recently added logic to omit duplicate nodes. This is unlike the JSON printer, which prints duplicate nodes, as Python and node.js do.
• The slowness hasn't really mattered, because this format isn't exposed to users. It's only for debugging Oils itself. But it's useful, and we may want to expose it.
• Also used in pp asdl (obj), another debugging feature.
• TODO: Add a simple benchmark? The new printer will probably be faster than the old one.
  • osh -n benchmarks/testdata/configure-coreutils tests a huge shell file

OSH-YSH Code Formatter

What is it? A formatter for shell code. I think it's more essential to have a YSH formatter, but an OSH formatter is also possible. They both use the same lossless syntax tree.

Motivation - Formatters make a new language easier to use, and there are many users who don't know shell well.

For example, I don't know TypeScript well, and I had a good experience with deno fmt. It reduced the mental load of adopting a new tool.

Justin had a nice idea on on lobste.rs - we should create coarse tree with these elements:

• { } affect indentation in YSH
  • In OSH, we should also understand then elif else fi, do done, etc.
• ( ) in YSH changes the lexer from command mode to expression mode
• Newlines can't appear in atomic text() / chunks
• Comments need to be preserved at the end of lines
  • They may also be aligned on consecutive lines (with heuristics)
• Keywords like while for if begin blocks of code

Why? We don't don't want to take responsibility for every formatting decision!

I actually think the command mode / statement formatter should be non-wrapping, while expressions can wrap. Commands will likely be more common than expressions in most YSH code.

The formatter will be invoked with ysh --tool format myfile.ysh.

It can also be used with the output of osh --tool ysh-ify, which roughly translates OSH to YSH (doesn't preserve semantics). This may help generate test data, since there's plenty of shell code in the wild, but not much YSH code.

Experimental: Export the Oils "Syntax Graph" to Users with "NIL8"

What is it? A more human AND machine-readable format for the syntax tree, which is actually a graph.

Motivation: The pretty-printed AST could be a parseable format. Allow users to reuse all the hard work we did parsing shell!

Printing raw ASDL data is useful, but it could be more readable with custom logic to print the natural layers of the graph. There are 4 logical layers in frontend/syntax.asdl:

1. source_t describes whether shell code comes from foo.sh or ysh -c 'echo mycode'
2. SourceLine represents physical lines of code
3. Token refers to portions of lines
4. The syntax tree of command_t word_t word_part_t expr_t. The leaves are tokens.

And instead of a pretty format meant for humans, we may want to print an s-expression-like format I'm calling "NIL8".

NIL8 can be parsed. You may want to write tree-shaking code to deploy YSH into containers.

More on NIL8 below. Again, it's experimental.

Implementation Notes

Do the printers depend on each other?

• The YSH printer (1) naturally comes before the ASDL printer (2).
• The code formatter (3) is concrete and useful to end users.
• The NIL8 printer (4) comes after the ASDL printer (2), but it's experimental.
  • It depends on a bunch of other work in Oils/YSH.

Risks:

• No real risks for (1) and (2)
  • They're "engineering" — Justin's blog post is very close! It could be ported almost literally to typed Python. It will translate automatically to C++. (And it would be interesting to compare our garbage-collected C++ with Rust's Rc<T>)
  • ASDL involves code generation in both Python and C++. We have a custom build system for this (using Ninja for C++).
• The OSH/YSH formatter has non-trivial decisions
  • End-of-line comments. (Shell doesn't have block comments, which simplifies things.)
  • Multi-line strings in YSH have a special rule -- the indentation of the closing ''' is significant
  • Shell here docs may be tricky
  • This formatter probably requires the most "elbow grease". This is why I said that the statement formatter should initially be non-wrapping — it reduces the scope of the problem.

Code Skeleton

I added some stubs in the code:

• data_lang/pretty.asdl - How we would express the IR
• data_lang/pretty.py - YSH conversion.
• data_lang/pretty-benchmark.sh - Our naive ASDL pretty printer is slow. It can take more than 3 seconds on a big file, vs. ~100ms to parse it. (It does print over 100 MB of text though.)

To generate Python code from the ASDL schema, run build/py.sh all. Otherwise, Oils is a plain Python 2 program, with a few C extensions.

C++ translation is a separate step, and it's now pretty polished.

For new contributors:

• Contributing on the wiki
• Where Contributors Have Problems

There is also a stub for the formatter:

• tools/fmt.py - Stub file for the formatter.
  • Code copied from tools/ysh_ify.py.

Design Questions

This section has some less concrete thoughts.

Non-Wrapping Printers aka "Indenters" - same PPL IR?

I think the PPL IRs are also useful if you're not line wrapping? You can just fix indentation.

Columnar Layouts (spending more time)

nodejs does this in its console.log().

Future work? We should get the basic pretty printer working first.

Two Levels of Coarse Parsing for YSH? (not at first)

Making the coarse tree has some similarity to syntax highlighting. I wrote a simple syntax highlighter for 5+ languages called micro-syntax, and it should support YSH too.

Sketch:

1. First make the really coarse tree, something like: Comment | Code | StringLiteral
2. Then make a less coarse tree for pretty printing:
   • Lex code into {} ()
   • Categorize comments into EndLineComment | BeginLineComment

Then do a trivial linear pass to fix up indentation. The { } or do done tokens determine indentation.

Though honestly it's probably better to just reuse our elaborate parser at first. I like to "compress" different algorithms together, but it may not be worth it here.

NIL8 - Uses cases for both Code and Data

What is "NIL8"? We don't know if it's a good idea yet, but it may be part of J8 Notation.

Think:

• A mash-up of JSON and S-expressions
  • NIL8 Isn't Lisp
  • Narrow Intermediate Language
• WebAssembly text format
  • An IR for an imperative language, with a Lisp-y syntax.
• An exterior S-expression format
  • Blog: Oils is Exterior-First
  • I posted POSE (portable s-expressions) on lobste.rs for this reason: https://lobste.rs/s/lwf4jv/pose_portable_s_expressions_pose_spec (no comments)

If NIL8 can represent both the lossless syntax tree and a new IR for a mycpp rewrite ("yaks"), that's a good test of the design.

Note that the AST is a statically typed data structure, which means we may also want to export the ASDL schema as NIL8!

Links:

• #data-languages > NIL8 Infix Rule
• Commit describing infix rule

At a high level, we're trying to nudge users toward a small set of syntaxes for shell-like programming, rather than inventing ad hoc syntax every time. String literals are a pain point: people often implement them badly, or not at all.

Conclusion

I think we should have shared infrastructure for 3 printers:

1. YSH data structures
2. ASDL data structures
3. OSH and YSH code

And then there's this idea of "replacing" or rationalizing the ASDL syntax tree with "NIL8":

• It can be parsed, not just printed.
  • To parse, you can reuse an existing JSON string lexer. IMO, this is the fiddliest part of parsing.
• It can export a graph shape, in natural "layers".

Related

Docs

• Parser Architecture - describes issues like the "lossless invariant", which is affected by re-parsing.
  • I recently updated it, and tested the invariant with test/lossless.sh.
• The repo README has an overview of the code.

Fun Computer Science Problems in Oils

Pretty printing is adjacent to other fun problems in Oils, like GC performance, "boxless" optimization, etc.

• #help-wanted > Fun Computer Science Problems

Things to think about:

(1) Unified Code Representation for Oils

We want to pack all these tools into Oils:

• The interpreter, for execution
  • prints precise errors, ignores comment tokens
• ysh-ify - a VERY rough translation of OSH to YSH
  • doesn't respect semantics, because you really need static types for that
  • uses "span ID"
• Pretty Printing (this doc)
  • will also use "span ID" to detect comment positions, I think
• Syntax highlighting
  • Interactive highlighting will help users learn the language
  • It's recursive, because sublanguages are mutually recursive: string literals, commands, expressions

Related: Retrospective on the Go ast package.

(2) Yaks - mycpp from the bottom up

NIL8 leads into "Yaks", which is an IR for garbage collected C++.

• Yaks is of course a big yak shave, but it's concrete because we recently completed the translation with mycpp. (mycpp is a crappy program which produces good results!)

(3) Pretty printing will cause many small allocations.

I think that naive implementations should be fast enough. If not, any slowness may be due to allocation, not necessarily the pretty printing algorithm itself.

Some solutions:

• We want to move towards a tagged pointer runtime, an ambitious transformation of the entire interpreter.
  • But we'll do it in steps. First step: Small String Optimization.
  • Yaks goes along with a tagged pointer runtime. Yaks also has a principled IR, which may be represented with many small objects.
• GC rooting optimization should give a speed boost

Appendix: Older Notes

This is about ref counting for printing graph-shaped data.

I no longer think this is as important. I think we should manually construct 4 layers of the graph, as described in the section on formatter (4).

Dynamically Typed YSH Data (value_t)

Similar to JSON / JSON8 printing, except we

1. count references, and then print ... instead of repeating
2. line wrap
3. assign colors
   • for atoms, and possibly for balanced parens, to make it more readable

Step 1: Count References

This is a global pass that computes a Dict[int, int]

object ID -> number of times referenced in the graph

The graph is specified by single root node, e.g. the argument to

pp value (obj)

Pass this dict into the second step.

Step 2: Convert To Homogeneous Representation

value.List   -> hnode.Compound with []
value.Dict   -> hnode.Compound with {}

null, true, false -> Atom
Cycle detected -> Atom, with { --> 4beef2 }
                             [ --> 4beef2 ]

Repetition:

{ key: { ... 4beef2 }, key2: { ... 4beef2 }

Or maybe omit the type, since strings don't have that:

{ key: ... 4beef2, key2: ... 4beef2 }

hnode Schema

The schema looks like this now?

hnode = 
  Atom(str s, color color) - # External objects can use this?
| Compound(hnode* items)

The length of 'str s' is the input to line wrapping.

Step 3: Figure out what's on each line

TODO: what's the heuristic here? Is it global?

Dynamic programming?

do we insert hnode.Newline() or something?

Statically Typed ASDL Data

Reduce it to the case above.

Step 1 - Ref Counting / Cycle Detection?

We do this all at once?

Because to convert to value.Record, you have to do cycle detection anyway.

And that's similar to ref counting.

Step 2 - ASDL records -> value.Record

value = 
    ...
  | Record(str type_name, Dict[str, value_t] fields)

The special "-" key can be used for JSON:

{"-": "command.Simple, "name": "hi"}

Though this loses some information, and it doesn't solve the problem with shared references. We would need Packle for that.

Step 2a: Optional Abbreviation?

Is this separate? Or part of step 2.

We need something between value.Record and hnode.Compound to do ABBREVIATION:

• Abbreviate type name, or omit it
• Omit some field names (requires schema to record it)
• Change () to <>

Also need nodes for

• ... means already printed
• --- means CANNOT print, because it's a cycle
• @1f23 - ID if already printed, or in a cycle

Steps 3 and 4 - Homogeneous Representation, Line Wrapping

Identical to the dynamically typed case above.