While reading the Haskell Wikibook about MonadPlus, I found the following function which basically takes a Char and a String and returns Just (char,tail) if such char is equal the string head, or Nothing otherwise:
char :: Char -> String -> Maybe (Char, String)
char c s = do
let (c':s') = s
if c == c' then Just (c, s') else Nothing
and they explain that let (c':s') = s will not produce an exception, cause it is in a do block which would evaluate to Nothing when the pattern fails, but, that isn't the case, because when I tried it:
*Main> char 'a' ""
*** Exception: exercice2.hs:5:7-17: Irrefutable pattern failed for pattern (c' : s')
So I had to rewrite it to:
char' :: Char -> String -> Maybe (Char, String)
char' _ [] = Nothing
char' c (c':s')
| c == c' = Just (c,s')
| otherwise = Nothing
and it worked as expected... Why is it happening to me?
I think the wiki is wrong. They are probably confusing this with the fact that binds fail via the fail function a Monad affords. So the following example will use the fail function from Maybe, which returns Nothing:
char :: Char -> String -> Maybe (Char, String)
char c s = do
(c':s') <- return s
if c == c' then Just (c, s') else Nothing
Related
I was reading this Monadic Parsing article while I was trying to implement a pretty simple string parser in Haskell and also get a better understanding of using monads. Down below you can see my code, implementing functions for matching a single character or a whole string. It works as expected, but I observed two strange behaviors that I can't explain.
I have to handle single characters in string, otherwise, the parser will return only empty lists. To be exact, if I remove this line string [c] = do char c; return [c] it won't work anymore. I was expecting that string (c:s) would handle string (c:[]) properly. What could be the cause here?
In my opinion, string definition should be equivalent to string s = mapM char s as it would create a list of [Parser Char] for each character in s and collect the results as Parser [Char]. If I use the definition based on mapM, the program would get stuck in an infinite loop and won't print anything. Is something about lazy evalutation that I miss here?
.
module Main where
newtype Parser a = Parser { apply :: String->[(a, String)] }
instance Monad Parser where
return a = Parser $ \s -> [(a, s)]
ma >>= k = Parser $ \s -> concat [apply (k a) s' | (a, s') <- apply ma s]
instance Applicative Parser where
pure = return
mf <*> ma = do { f <- mf; f <$> ma; }
instance Functor Parser where
fmap f ma = f <$> ma
empty :: Parser a
empty = Parser $ const []
anychar :: Parser Char
anychar = Parser f where
f [] = []
f (c:s) = [(c, s)]
satisfy :: (Char -> Bool) -> Parser Char
satisfy prop = do
c <- anychar
if prop c then return c
else empty
char :: Char -> Parser Char
char c = satisfy (== c)
string :: String -> Parser String
string [] = empty
string [c] = do char c; return [c] --- if I remove this line, all results will be []
string (c:s) = do char c; string s; return (c:s)
main = do
let s = "12345"
print $ apply (string "123") s
print $ apply (string "12") s
print $ apply (string "1") s
print $ apply (string []) s
PS. I think the title of the question is not suggestive enough, please propose an edit if you have a better idea.
Since you did string [] = empty instead of string [] = return [], you can't use it as a base case for recursion that builds up a list.
fmap f ma = f <$> ma is wrong, since <$> is defined in terms of fmap. If you want to define fmap in terms of your other instances, then do fmap = liftA or fmap = liftM. Since mapM uses fmap internally but your original string didn't, this problem didn't come up in your first simple test.
string [] = empty
means: "If you need to parse an empty string, fail -- it can not be parsed at all, no matter what's the input string".
By comparison,
string [] = return ""
means: "If you need to parse an empty string, succeed and return the empty string -- it can always be parsed, no matter what's the input string".
By using the first equation, when you recurse in the case string (c:cs) you need to stop at one character (string [c]) since reaching zero characters will run empty and make the whole parser fail.
Hence, you need to either use that string [c] = return [c] equation, or modify the base "empty string" case so that it succeeds. Arguably, the latter would be more natural.
I try to create a calculator and I create some functions for the parsing
I already create a type type Parser a = String -> Maybe (a , String ) and a function that take a Char as argument and returns a Parser Char like this :
parse1 :: Char -> Parser Char
parse1 b (a:as)
| b == a = Just (b, as)
| otherwise = Nothing
and I would like to create a function which takes a parser in argument and tries to apply it zero or more times, returning a list
of the parsed elements.
many :: Parser a -> Parser [a]
> many (parse1 ' ') " lopesbar"
Just (" ", "lopesbar")
I Already try this but it doesn't work (infinite loop)
many :: Parser a -> Parser [a]
many _ [] = Nothing
many func1 s =
case func1 s of
Just _ -> many func1 s
Nothing -> Nothing
also i try this
many :: Parser a -> Parser [a]
many func1 s = case func1 s of
Just (f, a) -> Just ([f], a)
Nothing -> Nothing
there are no errors but it's not the same output
I've done some research but couldn't find anything. I don't understand how a function like this works:
func :: Maybe (Int) -> Maybe (Int)
How am I supposed to do the pattern matching? I've tried this but it didn't work:
func Just a = Just a | otherwise = Nothing
func Nothing = Just Nothing | otherwise = Nothing
How can I make this work?
Error message:
exercises6.hs:83:22: error: parse error on input ‘|’
|
83 | func Just a = Just a | otherwise = Nothing
| ^
You pattern match on the two possible cases. A Maybe a has two data constructors: a Nothing, and a Just … with … the value it wraps. There is no | otherwise part when you do pattern matching. The pipe character (|) is used for guards [lyah].
So you can for example increment the value in a Just with:
func :: Maybe Int -> Maybe Int
func (Just x) = Just (x+1)
func Nothing = Nothing
The brackets around Just x are required here, as #chepner says. Otherwise it will be parsed as if Just is the first parameter, and x is a second parameter.
Since Maybe is an instance of the Functor typeclass, you can make use of fmap :: Functor f => (a -> b) -> f a -> f b here:
func :: Maybe Int -> Maybe Int
func = fmap (1+)
I want to write a function that gets the first integer in a string, if the integer is at the beginning of the string and is followed by space or nothing.
For example, "12" and "12 kids" would be valid strings, but "12kids", "a12" are invalid.
This is my function:
getFirstInteger :: String -> Int
getFirstInteger [] = error "No integer"
getFirstInteger str
| dropWhile (Char.isNumber) str == [] = read str :: Int
| Char.isSpace $ head $ dropWhile (Char.isNumber) str = read (takeWhile (Char.isNumber) str) :: Int
| otherwise = error "No integer found"
The problem is that if the string is actually an integer, head will raise an exception, so that is why the first condition exists. Is there any elegant solution to this problem?
getFirstInteger :: String -> Int
getFirstInteger = read . head . words
words will split the String into a list of Strings, which were originally separated by whitespace. head will take the first (or error if the original string was empty), and read will parse the string as usual (and error if the first word wasn't a valid Int).
However, I prefer a variant that doesn't use error on empty Strings or unparseable ones, e.g.
import Text.Read (readMaybe)
getFirstInteger :: String -> Maybe Int
getFirstInteger [] = Nothing
getFirstInteger xs = readMaybe . head . words $ xs
One could write this completely point-free with listToMaybe from Data.Maybe, but that's probably an overkill:
import Data.Maybe (listToMaybe)
import Text.Read (readMaybe)
import Control.Monad ((>=>))
getFirstInteger :: String -> Maybe Int
getFirstInteger = listToMaybe . words >=> readMaybe
If you want to parse strings without using parser combinator libraries or any of the machinery in Text.Read, have a look at the functions break and span:
span :: (a -> Bool) -> [a] -> ([a], [a])
break :: (a -> Bool) -> [a] -> ([a], [a])
The nice thing is that both of these functions not only return what they match but also the remainder of the string allowing you to continue your parsing.
To solve your problem:
import Data.Char
getFirstInteger :: String -> Maybe Int
getFirstInteger str
let (digs, rest1) = span isDigit str
endsok = case rest1 of
[] -> True
(c:_) -> c == ' '
in
if not (null digs) && endsok
then Just (read digs)
else Nothing -- either no digits or doesn't end properly
This version does not allow a leading minus sign. This next version allows an optional leading minus sign for the integer:
getFirstInteger' str =
let (minus,rest1) = span (=='-') str
(digs, rest2) = span isDigit rest1
endsok = case rest2 of
[] -> True
(c:_) -> c == ' '
in
if length minus <= 1 && not (null digs) && endsok
then Just (read (minus ++ digs))
else Nothing
Yes - this does not terminate as early as possible on bad input. I provide it mainly as an example of how to chain together calls to span and break.
Use reads. For example:
type Unit = String
readUnit :: String -> Maybe (Int, Maybe Unit)
readUnit s = case reads s of -- the integer is at the beginning of the string and...
(n, ' ':unit):_ -> Just (n, Just unit) -- is followed by space...
(n, "" ):_ -> Just (n, Nothing) -- or nothing.
_ -> Nothing
In ghci:
> readUnit "12"
Just (12,Nothing)
> readUnit "12 kids"
Just (12,Just "kids")
> readUnit "12kids"
Nothing
> readUnit "a12"
Nothing
However, there are a few minor considerations to keep in mind. It's possible that read does not restrict the syntax as much as you might want; for example, the following answer may surprise you:
> readUnit " ((-0x5)) kids"
Just (-5,Just "kids")
You may also want to drop extraneous spaces in the unit; for example, you could change the first clause above to
(n, ' ':unit):_ -> Just (n, Just (dropWhile isSpace unit))
or similar. And as a final variation on this theme, note that while the standard instances of Read never return lists with more than one element from reads, it is technically possible that some user-supplied type may do so. So if you were ever to use reads to parse types other than Int, you may want to either demand an unambiguous parse or consider all the parses before deciding what to do; the above code bakes in the assumption that the first parse is as good as any.
Im working through the exercises on wikibooks/haskell and there is an exercise in the MonadPlus-chapter that wants you to write this hexChar function. My function works as shown below, but the thing is that when I try to switch the 2 helper parsers (digitParse and alphaParse) around the function ceases to work properly. If I switch them around I can only parse digits and not alphabetic chars anymore.
Why is this so?
char :: Char -> String -> Maybe (Char, String)
char c s = do
let (c':s') = s
if c == c' then Just (c, s') else Nothing
digit :: Int -> String -> Maybe Int
digit i s | i > 9 || i < 0 = Nothing
| otherwise = do
let (c:_) = s
if read [c] == i then Just i else Nothing
hexChar :: String -> Maybe (Char, String)
hexChar s = alphaParse s `mplus` digitParse s -- cannot switch these to parsers around!!
where alphaParse s = msum $ map ($ s) (map char (['a'..'f'] ++ ['A'..'F']))
digitParse s = do let (c':s') = s
x <- msum $ map ($ s) (map digit [0..9])
return (intToDigit x, s')
if read [c] == i then Just i else Nothing
The marked code has a flaw. You're using Int's Read instance, e.g. read :: String -> Int. But if it's not possible to parse [c] as an int (e.g. "a"), read will throw an exception:
> digit 1 "doesnt start with a digit"
*** Exception: Prelude.read: no parse
> -- other example
> (read :: String -> Int) "a"
*** Exception: Prelude.read: no parse
Instead, go the other way:
if [c] == show i then Just i else Nothing
This will always works, since show won't fail (not counting cases where bottom is involved).