I have a list of Strings, errors. I do some checks and if any fail, I append a message to errors. Something like this:
let errors = []
let errors' = errors ++ if (check1 fails) then ["check1 failed"] else []
let errors'' = errors' ++ if (check2 fails) then ["check2 failed"] else []
Surely there is a more idiomatic way to accumulate changes to errors without making a new variable every time. Do I need to break out Data.IORef for mutable variables? Seems like overkill.
If I simply remove the apostrophes, the compiler returns an error because it gets caught in an infinite loop.
You could group the conditions and messages together
checksTodo = [(check1 fails, "check1 failed"), (check2 fails, "check2 failed")]
errors = map snd (filter fst checksTodo)
If you are comfortable using the list comprehension syntax, you could instead write it in a more readable fashion:
errors = [ msg | (cond, msg) <- checksTodo, cond ]
If I simply remove the apostrophes, the compiler returns an error because it gets caught in an infinite loop.
This is happening because let bindings in Haskell (unlike most languages) are recursive by default. Which means that if you say
let errors = errors ++ if (check1 fails) then ["check1 failed"] else []
the compiler will treat it as a recursive definition. When you try to evaluate errors at runtime, you go into an infinite loop as you need errors to compute errors.
Another alternative:
let errors =
[ "check1 failed" | check1 fails ] ++
[ "check2 failed" | check2 fails ] ++
...
What theindigamer said, plus, the idiomatic way to do error checking is usually having your checker return an Either: if something goes wrong, produce a Left with the error message, otherwise a Right with the result.
Since, in this case, your checks aren't producing an actual result, you can make the result the unit type (); thus, you can convert your checks to generate Either like this:
check1Either = if check1 fails then Left "check1 failed" else Right ()
And then, just run the checks and filter the elements with a Left using the lefts function in Data.Either:
import Data.Either
errors = lefts [check1Either, check2Either]
(You might ask, if there isn't going to be a result to fill Right with, why not use Maybe? You can, and filter errors with catMaybes from Data.Maybe; it's just that Nothing is usually interpreted to mean that the computation failed, and Just usually means success - the opposite of what happens here - whereas, idiomatically speaking Left is usually interpreted as an error)
Related
I'm currently working my way through Learn You a Haskell for Great Good, and I'm trying to modify one of the code snippets in chapter nine, "Input and Output" to handle errors correctly:
main = do
(command:args) <- getArgs
let result = lookup command dispatch
if result == Nothing
then
errorExit
else
let (Just action) = result
action args
where
dispatch :: [(String, [String] -> IO ())]
is an association list
and
errorExit :: IO ()
is some function that prints an error message.
Compiling this with GHC gives the error message
todo.hs:20:13: parse error in let binding: missing required 'in'
which (to my understanding), seems to be saying that the "let" here doesn't realise it's in a "do" block.
Adding "do" on lines five and seven (after "then" and "else" respectively), changes the error message to
todo.hs:20:13:
The last statement in a 'do' block must be an expression
let (Just action) = result
todo.hs:21:5: Not in scope: `action'.
and now, whilst I agree with the first error message, I also have that one of my variables has jumped out of scope? I've double checked my alignment, and nothing seems to be out of place.
What is the appropriate way to assign a varaible within an if clause that is within a do block?
My suggestion is to not use if in the first place, use case. By using case you get to test the value and bind the result to a variable all in one go. Like this:
main = do
(command:args) <- getArgs
case lookup command dispatch of
Nothing -> errorExit
Just action -> action args
For a more in-depth discussion on why we should prefer case over if see boolean blindness.
#svenningsson suggested the right fix. The reason your original fails is because let clauses can only appear at the top level of a do block - they're simple syntactic sugar that doesn't look into inner expressions:
do let x = 1
y
desugars to the let expression
let x = 1 in y
Alas, in a do block, an expression clause like if ... then ... else ... has no way to declare variables in the rest of the do block at all.
There are at least two possible ways to get around this.
Absorb the remainder of the do block into the expression:
main = do
(command:args) <- getArgs
let result = lookup command dispatch
if result == Nothing
then
errorExit
else do
let (Just action) = result
action args
(This is essentially the method #svenningsson uses in his better case version too.)
This can however get a bit awkward if the remainder of the do expression needs to be duplicated into more than one branch.
("Secret" trick: GHC (unlike standard Haskell) doesn't actually require a final, inner do block to be indented more than the outer one, which can help if the amount of indentation starts getting annoying.)
Pull the variable declaration outside the expression:
main = do
(command:args) <- getArgs
let result = lookup command dispatch
action <- if result == Nothing
then
errorExit
else do
let (Just action') = result
return action'
action args
Here that requires making up a new variable name, since the pattern in the let clause isn't just a simple variable.
Finally, action was always out of scope in the last line of your code, but GHC works in several stages, and if it aborts in the parsing stage, it won't check for scope errors. (For some reason it does the The last statement in a 'do' block must be an expression check at a later stage than parsing.)
Addendum: After I understood what #Sibi meant, I see that result == Nothing isn't going to work, so you cannot use if ... then ... else ... with that even with the above workarounds.
You are getting an error because you are trying to compare values of function type. When you perform the check if result == Nothing, it tries to check the equality of Nothing with the value of result which is a type of Maybe ([String] -> IO ()).
So, if you want it to properly typecheck, you have to define Eq instances for -> and that wouldn't make any sense as you are trying to compare two functions for equality.
You can also use fmap to write your code:
main = do
(command:args) <- getArgs
let result = lookup command dispatch
print $ fmap (const args) result
Suppose I have a function that should calculate some value in one case and
throw an exception otherwise. I would like to use QuickCheck to ensure my
function behaves correctly, however is not obvious how to perform this sort
of check. Is it possible and if yes, how to check that exception of certain
type is thrown and it contains correct information about its cause?
Indeed ioProperty is the key to this sort of test. You will need to use it in combination with catch or try. Here I show the latter:
prop_exceptional :: Int -> Property
prop_exceptional n = ioProperty $ do
result <- try . evaluate $ myDangerousFunction n
return $ r === result
where r | n == 0 = Left MyException
| otherwise = Right 42
Quite obviously, myDangerousFunction should throw MyException whenever it gets 0 and return 42 otherwise. Note the useful function evaluate, which you need to use to evaluate pure function in IO context to catch exceptions produced there.
I have recently started learning Haskell and have been trying my hand at Parsec. However, for the past couple of days I have been stuck with a problem that I have been unable to find the solution to. So what I am trying to do is write a parser that can parse a string like this:
<"apple", "pear", "pineapple", "orange">
The code that I wrote to do that is:
collection :: Parser [String]
collection = (char '<') *> (string `sepBy` char ',')) <* (char '>')
string :: Parser String
string = char '"' *> (many (noneOf ['\"', '\r', '\n', '"'])) <* char '"'
This works fine for me as it is able to parse the string that I have defined above. Nevertheless, I would now like to enforce the rule that every element in this collection must be unique and that is where I am having trouble. One of the first results I found when searching on the internet was this one, which suggest the usage of the nub function. Although the problem stated in that question is not the same, it would in theory solve my problem. But what I don't understand is how I can apply this function within a Parser. I have tried adding the nub function to several parts of the code above without any success. Later I also tried doing it the following way:
collection :: Parser [String]
collection = do
char '<'
value <- (string `sepBy` char ','))
char '>'
return nub value
But this does not work as the type does not match what nub is expecting, which I believe is one of the problems I am struggling with. I am also not entirely sure whether nub is the right way to go. My fear is that I am going in the wrong direction and that I won't be able to solve my problem like this. Is there perhaps something I am missing? Any advice or help anyone could provide would be greatly appreciated.
The Parsec Parser type is an instance of MonadPlus which means that we can always fail (ie cause a parse error) whenever we want. A handy function for this is guard:
guard :: MonadPlus m => Bool -> m ()
This function takes a boolean. If it's true, it return () and the whole computation (a parse in this case) does not fail. If it's false, the whole thing fails.
So, as long as you don't care about efficiency, here's a reasonable approach: parse the whole list, check for whether all the elements are unique and fail if they aren't.
To do this, the first thing we have to do is write a predicate that checks if every element of a list is unique. nub does not quite do the right thing: it return a list with all the duplicates taken out. But if we don't care much about performance, we can use it to check:
allUnique ls = length (nub ls) == length ls
With this predicate in hand, we can write a function unique that wraps any parser that produces a list and ensures that list is unique:
unique parser = do res <- parser
guard (allUnique res)
return res
Again, if guard is give True, it doesn't affect the rest of the parse. But if it's given False, it will cause an error.
Here's how we could use it:
λ> parse (unique collection) "<interactive>" "<\"apple\",\"pear\",\"pineapple\",\"orange\">"
Right ["apple","pear","pineapple","orange"]
λ> parse (unique collection) "<interactive>" "<\"apple\",\"pear\",\"pineapple\",\"orange\",\"apple\">"
Left "<interactive>" (line 1, column 46):unknown parse error
This does what you want. However, there's a problem: there is no error message supplied. That's not very user friendly! Happily, we can fix this using <?>. This is an operator provided by Parsec that lets us set the error message of a parser.
unique parser = do res <- parser
guard (allUnique res) <?> "unique elements"
return res
Ahhh, much better:
λ> parse (unique collection) "<interactive>" "<\"apple\",\"pear\",\"pineapple\",\"orange\",\"apple\">"
Left "<interactive>" (line 1, column 46):
expecting unique elements
All this works but, again, it's worth noting that it isn't efficient. It parses the whole list before realizing elements aren't unique, and nub takes quadratic time. However, this works and it's probably more than good enough for parsing small to medium-sized files: ie most things written by hand rather than autogenerated.
the following code will fail (only) at run time
do {(x:xs) <- return "";return x}
with a user error (Pattern match failure in do expression at ...
Is there a way to enable compiler warnings for this kind of potential errors?
Knowing that some destructive pattern matching might fail , what's the best way to handle this in the general case.
Thank you
Use a case expression instead:
do
case "" of
[] -> undefined -- or whatever else you want to do
(x:xs) -> return x
Hope that helps.
I'm trying to write a function in Haskell which checks for some things and then recurses based on some minimal user input. In order to do that I think I have to use do blocks.
cip :: [Argument] -> [Argument] -> Bool -> Bool -> IO()
cip (a:args) pargs burden gameover = do
let nasko = a:pargs
putStrLn (getPremise a)
let newgraph = Carneades.mkArgGraph nasko
let newcaes = (CAES (newgraph,audience2,assStandarts))
let answer = (acceptable (mkProp (getPremise a)) newcaes )
print answer
if(answer==True)
then (cip args nasko burden gameover)
else do
print "One of the arguments is not proved. Here are the premises that need proving"
print (propsForFixing newcaes a)
print "Let's see what you have for the first Propositon"
--add an if to check if no applicable arguments.
print (argumentScanHelp (head (propsForFixing newcaes a)) args)
print "\n Would you like me to apply the firt one? Y/N"
choice <- getLine
if(choice=="Y") then do print "applying the argument"
let applicabee = head (argumentScanHelp (head (propsForFixing newcaes a)) args)
print "Argument targeted"
let newargs = delete applicabee args
let newpargs = applicabee:nasko
print "Argument applied sucsessfuly. Recusing again"
(cip newargs newpargs burden gameover)
return()
It hurts my eyes just by looking at it, but that's do blocks for you.
Everything up to the third do block is okay. But then on this line:
if(choice=="Y") then do print "applying the argument"
let applicabee = head (argumentScanHelp (head (propsForFixing newcaes a)) args)
The complier starts crying:
Main.hs:209:73: parse error on input `let'
Tried a all kinds of different indentations but I can't seem to get it to work.
I don't want to use separate functions, because that means I'll have to pass a lot of arguments around constantly.
Can anyone help me get it right? Also an explanation of what exactly the specifications for nested do block are would be greatly appreciated.
The cause of the error I believe is the misuse of the if expression. You use it as if it were an if statement that exists in most imperative languages. Simply put there must always be an else.
However, in do blocks it makes sense to "not have an else", something like an if statement without an else. Luckily the Control.Monad module will provide you with a function for exactly that:
import Control.Monad (when)
(...)
when (choice=="Y") $ do print "applying the argument"
let applicabee = ...
You seem to already use nested do blocks in the correct way which is good, which basically is that you must indent properly.
PS. Also make sure your last return () is indented like the rest of your code! DS.