Hi I am attempting to make a combinator parser and I am currently attempting to make it read headers and create parsers based upon what the header which is parsed is. I.e A header of; int, float, string will result in Parser<Parser<int>*Parser<float>*Parser<string>>.
I am wondering however how you would unpack the "inner" parsers which and then end up with a something like; Parser<int*float*string>?
Parser type is: type Parser<'a> = Parser of (string -> Result<'a * string, string>)
I'm not sure that your idea with nested parsers is going to work - if you parse a header dynamically, then you'll need to produce a list of parsers of the same type. The way you wrote this is suggesting that the type of the parser will depend on the input, which is not possible in F#.
So, I'd expect that you will need to define a value like this:
type Value = Int of int | String of string | Float of float
And then your parser that parses a header will produce something like:
let parseHeaders args : Parser<Parser<Value> list> = (...)
The next question is, what do you want to do with the nested parsers? Presumably, you'll need to turn them into a single parser that parses the whole line of data (if this is something like a CSV file). Typically, you'd define a function sequence:
val sequence : sep:Parser<unit> -> parsers:Parser<'a> list -> Parser<'a list>
This takes a separator (say, parser to recognize a comma) and a list of parsers and produces a single parser that runs all the parsers in a sequence with the separator in between.
Then you can do:
parseHeaders input |> map (fun parsers -> sequence (char ',') parsers)
And you get a single parser Parser<Parser<string>>. You now want to run the nested parser on the rest of the that is left after running the outer parser, which recognizes headers. The following function does the trick:
let unwrap (Parser f:Parser<Parser<'a>>) = Parser (fun s ->
match f s with
| Result.Ok(Parser nested, rest) -> nested rest
| Result.Error e -> Result.Error e )
Related
I am currently writing a basic parser. A parser for type a takes a string in argument and returns either nothing, or an object of type a and the rest of the string.
Here is a simple type satisfying all these features:
type Parser a = String -> Maybe (a, String)
For example, I wrote a function that takes a Char as argument and returns a Parser Char :
parseChar :: Char -> Parser Char
parseChar _ [] = Nothing
parseChar c (x:xs)
| c == x = Just (x, xs)
| otherwise = Nothing
I would like to write a function which takes a parser in argument and tries to apply it zero or more times, returning a list of the parsed elements :
parse :: Parser a -> Parser [a]
Usage example:
> parse (parseChar ' ') " foobar"
Just (" ", "foobar")
I tried to write a recursive function but I can't save the parsed elements in a list.
How can I apply the parsing several times and save the result in a list ?
I tried to write a recursive function but I can't save the parsed elements in a list.
You don't need to "save" anything. You can use pattern matching. Here's a hint. Try to reason about what should happen in each case below. The middle case is a bit subtle, don't worry if you get that wrong at first. Note how s and s' are used below.
parse :: Parser a -> Parser [a]
parse p s = case p s of
Nothing -> ... -- first p failed
Just (x,s') -> case parse p s' of
Nothing -> ... -- subtle case, might not be relevant after all
Just (xs,s'') -> ... -- merge the results
Another hint: note that according to your description parse p should never fail, since it can always return the empty list.
I'm taking a Haskell course at school, and I have to define a Logical Proposition datatype in Haskell. Everything so far Works fine (definition and functions), and i've declared it as an instance of Ord, Eq and show. The problem comes when I'm required to define a program which interacts with the user: I have to parse the input from the user into my datatype:
type Var = String
data FProp = V Var
| No FProp
| Y FProp FProp
| O FProp FProp
| Si FProp FProp
| Sii FProp FProp
where the formula: ¬q ^ p would be: (Y (No (V "q")) (V "p"))
I've been researching, and found that I can declare my datatype as an instance of Read.
Is this advisable? If it is, can I get some help in order to define the parsing method?
Not a complete answer, since this is a homework problem, but here are some hints.
The other answer suggested getLine followed by splitting at words. It sounds like you instead want something more like a conventional tokenizer, which would let you write things like:
(Y
(No (V q))
(V p))
Here’s one implementation that turns a string into tokens that are either a string of alphanumeric characters or a single, non-alphanumeric printable character. You would need to extend it to support quoted strings:
import Data.Char
type Token = String
tokenize :: String -> [Token]
{- Here, a token is either a string of alphanumeric characters, or else one
- non-spacing printable character, such as "(" or ")".
-}
tokenize [] = []
tokenize (x:xs) | isSpace x = tokenize xs
| not (isPrint x) = error $
"Invalid character " ++ show x ++ " in input."
| not (isAlphaNum x) = [x]:(tokenize xs)
| otherwise = let (token, rest) = span isAlphaNum (x:xs)
in token:(tokenize rest)
It turns the example into ["(","Y","(","No","(","V","q",")",")","(","V","p",")",")"]. Note that you have access to the entire repertoire of Unicode.
The main function that evaluates this interactively might look like:
main = interact ( unlines . map show . map evaluate . parse . tokenize )
Where parse turns a list of tokens into a list of ASTs and evaluate turns an AST into a printable expression.
As for implementing the parser, your language appears to have similar syntax to LISP, which is one of the simplest languages to parse; you don’t even need precedence rules. A recursive-descent parser could do it, and is probably the easiest to implement by hand. You can pattern-match on parse ("(":xs) =, but pattern-matching syntax can also implement lookahead very easily, for example parse ("(":x1:xs) = to look ahead one token.
If you’re calling the parser recursively, you would define a helper function that consumes only a single expression, and that has a type signature like :: [Token] -> (AST, [Token]). This lets you parse the inner expression, check that the next token is ")", and proceed with the parse. However, externally, you’ll want to consume all the tokens and return an AST or a list of them.
The stylish way to write a parser is with monadic parser combinators. (And maybe someone will post an example of one.) The industrial-strength solution would be a library like Parsec, but that’s probably overkill here. Still, parsing is (mostly!) a solved problem, and if you just want to get the assignment done on time, using a library off the shelf is a good idea.
the read part of a REPL interpreter typically looks like this
repl :: ForthState -> IO () -- parser definition
repl state
= do putStr "> " -- puts a > character to indicate it's waiting for input
input <- getLine -- this is what you're looking for, to read a line.
if input == "quit" -- allows user to quit the interpreter
then do putStrLn "Bye!"
return ()
else let (is, cs, d, output) = eval (words input) state -- your grammar definition is somewhere down the chain when eval is called on input
in do mapM_ putStrLn output
repl (is, cs, d, [])
main = do putStrLn "Welcome to your very own interpreter!"
repl initialForthState -- runs the parser, starting with read
your eval method will have various loops, stack manipulations, conditionals, etc to actually figure out what the user inputted. hope this helps you with at least the reading input part.
I am currently working on implementing a simple parser combinator library in Idris to learn the language and better understand type systems in general, but am having some trouble wrapping my head around how GADTs are declared and used. The parser data type that I am trying to formulate looks like (in Haskell): type Parser a = String -> [(a,String)], from this paper. Basically, the type is a function that takes a string and returns a list.
In Idris I have:
data Parser : Type -> Type where
fail : a -> (String -> [])
pass : a -> (String -> [(a,String)])
where the fail instance is a parser that always fails (i.e.- will be a function that always returns the empty list) and the pass instance is a parser that consumed some symbol. When loading the above into the interpreter, I get an error that there is a type mismatch between List elem and the expected type Type. But when I check the returned type of the parser in the repl with :t String -> List Type I get Type, which looks like it should work.
I would be very grateful if anyone could give a good explanation of why this data declaration does not work, or a better alternative to representing the parser data type.
In Haskell,
type Parser a = String -> [(a,String)]
doesn't create a new type, it is merely a type synonym. You can do something similar in Idris as
Parser : Type -> Type
Parser a = String -> List (a, String)
and then define your helper definitions as simple functions that return Parser as:
fail : Parser a
fail = const []
pass : a -> Parser a
pass x = \s => [(x, s)]
In defining your datatype Parser, the first line is saying this type takes a type and returns a type, in this case it takes an a and returns a Parser a.
So, your constructors should return Parser a.
Similar to a List which takes an a and returns a List a.
What you are currently returning in your constructors are not of type Parser - easily seen as nowhere does the word Parser occur on the right hand side.
Beyond that though, I'm not sure how you would best represent this.
However, there are some parser libraries already written in Idris, looking at these might help ? For example, have a look at this list of libraries, parsers are the first ones mentioned :-
Idris libraries
This question is related to both Parsec and uu-parsinglib. When we write parser combinators, they process characters streams from compiler. Is it somehow possible to parse a character and put it back (or return another character back) to the input stream?
I want for example to parse input "test + 5", parse the t, e, s, t and after recognition of test pattern, put for example v character back into the character stream, so while continuating the parsing process we are matching against v + 5
I do not want to use this in any particular case for now - I want to deeply learn the possibilities.
I'm not sure if it's possible with these parsers directly, but in general you can accomplish it by combining parsers with some streaming that allows injecting leftovers.
For example, using attoparsec-conduit you can turn a parser into a conduit using
sinkParser :: (AttoparsecInput a, MonadThrow m)
=> Parser a b -> Consumer a m b
where Consumer is a special kind of conduit that doesn't produce any output, only receives input and returns a final value.
Since conduits support leftovers, you can create a helper method that converts a parser that optionally returns a value to be pushed into the stream into a conduit:
import Data.Attoparsec.Types
import Data.Conduit
import Data.Conduit.Attoparsec
import Data.Functor
reinject :: (AttoparsecInput a, MonadThrow m)
=> Parser a (Maybe a, b) -> Consumer a m b
reinject p = do
(lo, r) <- sinkParser p
maybe (return ()) leftover lo
return r
Then you convert standard parsers to conduits using sinkParser and these special parsers using reinject, and then combine conduits instead of parsers.
I think the simplest way to archive this is to build a multi-layered parser. Think of a lexer + parser combination. This is a clean approach to this problem.
You have to separate the two kind of parsing. The search-and-replace parsing goes to the first parser and the build-the-AST parsing to the second. Or you can create an intermediate token representation.
import Text.Parsec
import Text.Parsec.String
parserLvl1 :: Parser String
parserLvl1 = many (try (string "test" >> return 'v') <|> anyChar)
parserLvl2 :: Parser Plus
parserLvl2 = do text1 <- many (noneOf "+")
char '+'
text2 <- many (noneOf "+")
return $ Plus text1 text2
data Plus = Plus String String
deriving Show
wholeParse :: String -> Either ParseError Plus
wholeParse source = do res1 <- parse parserLvl1 "lvl1" source
res2 <- parse parserLvl2 "lvl2" res1
return res2
Now you can parse your example. wholeParse "test+5" results in Right (Plus "v" "5").
Possible variations:
Create a class and an instance for combining wrapped parser stages. (Possibly carrying parser state.)
Create an intermediate representation, a stream of tokens
This is easily done in uu-parsinglib using the pSwitch function. But the question is why you want to do so? Because the v is missing from the input? In that case uu-parsinglib will perform error correction automatically so you do not need something like this. Otherwise you can write
pSwitch :: (st1 -> (st2, st2 -> st1)) -> P st2 a -> P st1 a
pInsert_v = pSwitch (\st1 -> (prepend v st2, id) (pSucceed ())
It depends on your actual state type how the v is actually added, so you will have to define the function prepend yourself. I do not know e.g. how such an insertion would influence the current position in the file etc.
Doaitse Swierstra
Using Parsec, I'm able to write a function of type String -> Maybe MyType with relative ease. I would now like to create a Read instance for my type based on that; however, I don't understand how readsPrec works or what it is supposed to do.
My best guess right now is that readsPrec is used to build a recursive parser from scratch to traverse a string, building up the desired datatype in Haskell. However, I already have a very robust parser who does that very thing for me. So how do I tell readsPrec to use my parser? What is the "operator precedence" parameter it takes, and what is it good for in my context?
If it helps, I've created a minimal example on Github. It contains a type, a parser, and a blank Read instance, and reflects quite well where I'm stuck.
(Background: The real parser is for Scheme.)
However, I already have a very robust parser who does that very thing for me.
It's actually not that robust, your parser has problems with superfluous parentheses, it won't parse
((1) (2))
for example, and it will throw an exception on some malformed inputs, because
singleP = Single . read <$> many digit
may use read "" :: Int.
That out of the way, the precedence argument is used to determine whether parentheses are necessary in some place, e.g. if you have
infixr 6 :+:
data a :+: b = a :+: b
data C = C Int
data D = D C
you don't need parentheses around a C 12 as an argument of (:+:), since the precedence of application is higher than that of (:+:), but you'd need parentheses around C 12 as an argument of D.
So you'd usually have something like
readsPrec p = needsParens (p >= precedenceLevel) someParser
where someParser parses a value from the input without enclosing parentheses, and needsParens True thing parses a thing between parentheses, while needsParens False thing parses a thing optionally enclosed in parentheses [you should always accept more parentheses than necessary, ((((((1)))))) should parse fine as an Int].
Since the readsPrec p parsers are used to parse parts of the input as parts of the value when reading lists, tuples etc., they must return not only the parsed value, but also the remaining part of the input.
With that, a simple way to transform a parsec parser to a readsPrec parser would be
withRemaining :: Parser a -> Parser (a, String)
withRemaining p = (,) <$> p <*> getInput
parsecToReadsPrec :: Parser a -> Int -> ReadS a
parsecToReadsPrec parsecParser prec input
= case parse (withremaining $ needsParens (prec >= threshold) parsecParser) "" input of
Left _ -> []
Right result -> [result]
If you're using GHC, it may however be preferable to use a ReadPrec / ReadP parser (built using Text.ParserCombinators.ReadP[rec]) instead of a parsec parser and define readPrec instead of readsPrec.