I need your help please, my question is,
How i can make like this in haskell:
dim myVar = "text 1"
myVar += " and " + "text 2"
The first thing you need to understand about Haskell is that you don't have variables, you only have values bound to names. Variables don't exists because values are immutable. This means that they never change. To change them is a compile time error.
At first this seems like a huge disadvantage, but in time you'll come to find that in most cases you don't need mutable values (and there are ways to do mutable values, but that's an advanced topic).
So, how would you write a function to do this? You could put in a file these contents:
module Main where
appendText :: String -> String -- Takes a string, returns a string
appendText text = text ++ " and " ++ "text 2"
main :: IO () -- An IO action with no result (think none or null)
main = do
let myText = "text 1"
putStrLn (appendText myText)
Since it seems that you have not yet introduced yourself fully to Haskell, I would recommend Learn You a Haskell, my favorite tutorial for the language. It starts with the very basics and works it way up to fairly advanced topics.
Related
I have a program I'm trying to create of a one line text editor
I've come to a bit of a wall at this point.
I have a list of letters called left and one called right
perhaps in a function or a do list how can I set left to left ++ char where char is a user inputted char. I understand it's not possible to modify lists but can I redefine them?
If this pseudo code helps
left = "hello"
in = get user input
left = left ++ in
Thanks in advance
This is what the State Monad is for. The link should help (it points to a tutorial). Your example would then become:
type Line = State String ()
addInput :: String -> Line
addInput inp = do
left <- get
put $ left ++ inp
runState (addInput <user input>) "hello"
This does, however, require getting to know monads a bit. Follow the examples in the link.
I'm writing an "append" function for a data type I've created (which basically deals with "streams"). However, this data type has 12 different constructors, dealing with different types of "stream", for example, infinite, null, fixed length, variable length, already appended etc.
There logic between the input types and output types is a bit complex but not incredibly so.
I've considered two approaches:
Match against broad categories (perhaps by wrapping in a simpler proxy type) and then match inside those matches OR
Just pattern match against 144 cases (12*12). I could perhaps reduce this to 100 with wildcard matches for particular combinations but that's about it.
I know the second approach is more ugly and difficult to maintain, but disregarding that, will GHC find the second approach easier to optimise? If it can do the second approach with a simple jump table (or perhaps two jump tables) I suspect it will be faster. But if it's doing a linear check it will be far slower.
Does GHC optimise pattern matches (even very big ones) into constant time jump tables?
Yes, GHC optimizes such pattern matches. The first seven (I think) constructors get optimizes especially well, via pointer tagging. I believe the rest will be handled by a jump table. But 144 cases sounds hard to maintain, and you'll have to watch for code size. Do you really need all those cases?
It's not too hard to write a small Haskell script that writes a huge case-block and a small benchmark for it. For example:
module Main (main) where
mapping = zip ['!'..'z'] (reverse ['!'..'z'])
test_code =
[
"module Main where",
"",
"tester :: String -> String",
"tester cs = do",
" c <- cs",
" case transform c of",
" Just c' -> [c']",
" Nothing -> [c ]",
"",
"input = concat [ [' '..'z'] | x <- [1..10000] ]",
"",
"main = print $ length $ tester $ input",
""
]
code1 =
test_code ++
[
"transform :: Char -> Maybe Char",
"transform c = lookup c " ++ show mapping
]
code2 =
test_code ++
[
"transform :: Char -> Maybe Char",
"transform c =",
" case c of"
] ++
map (\(k, v) -> " " ++ show k ++ " -> Just " ++ show v) mapping ++
[
" _ -> Nothing"
]
main = do
writeFile "Test1.hs" (unlines code1)
writeFile "Test2.hs" (unlines code2)
If you run this code, it generates two small Haskell source files: Test1.hs and Test2.hs. The former uses Prelude.lookup to map characters to characters. The latter uses a giant case-block. Both files contain code to apply the mapping to a large list of data and print out the size of the result. (This way avoids I/O, which would otherwise be the dominating factor.) On my system, Test1 takes a few seconds to run, whereas Test2 is pretty much instant.
The over-interested reader may like to try extending this to use Data.Map.lookup and compare the speed.
This proves that pattern-matching is far faster than an O(n) traversal of a list of key/value mappings... which isn't what you asked. But feel free to brew up your own benchmarks. You could try auto-generating a nested-case verses a flat-case and timing the result. My guess is that you won't see much difference, but feel free to try it.
For instance:
let x = 1 in putStrLn [dump|x, x+1|]
would print something like
x=1, (x+1)=2
And even if there isn't anything like this currently, would it be possible to write something similar?
TL;DR There is this package which contains a complete solution.
install it via cabal install dump
and/or
read the source code
Example usage:
{-# LANGUAGE QuasiQuotes #-}
import Debug.Dump
main = print [d|a, a+1, map (+a) [1..3]|]
where a = 2
which prints:
(a) = 2 (a+1) = 3 (map (+a) [1..3]) = [3,4,5]
by turnint this String
"a, a+1, map (+a) [1..3]"
into this expression
( "(a) = " ++ show (a) ++ "\t " ++
"(a+1) = " ++ show (a + 1) ++ "\t " ++
"(map (+a) [1..3]) = " ++ show (map (+ a) [1 .. 3])
)
Background
Basically, I found that there are two ways to solve this problem:
Exp -> String The bottleneck here is pretty-printing haskell source code from Exp and cumbersome syntax upon usage.
String -> Exp The bottleneck here is parsing haskell to Exp.
Exp -> String
I started out with what #kqr put together, and tried to write a parser to turn this
["GHC.Classes.not x_1627412787 = False","x_1627412787 = True","x_1627412787 GHC.Classes.== GHC.Types.True = True"]
into this
["not x = False","x = True","x == True = True"]
But after trying for a day, my parsec-debugging-skills have proven insufficient to date, so instead I went with a simple regular expression:
simplify :: String -> String
simplify s = subRegex (mkRegex "_[0-9]+|([a-zA-Z]+\\.)+") s ""
For most cases, the output is greatly improved.
However, I suspect this to likely mistakenly remove things it shouldn't.
For example:
$(dump [|(elem 'a' "a.b.c", True)|])
Would likely return:
["elem 'a' \"c\" = True","True = True"]
But this could be solved with proper parsing.
Here is the version that works with the regex-aided simplification: https://github.com/Wizek/kqr-stackoverflow/blob/master/Th.hs
Here is a list of downsides / unresolved issues I've found with the Exp -> String solution:
As far as I know, not using Quasi Quotation requires cumbersome syntax upon usage, like: $(d [|(a, b)|]) -- as opposed to the more succinct [d|a, b|]. If you know a way to simplify this, please do tell!
As far as I know, [||] needs to contain fully valid Haskell, which pretty much necessitates the use of a tuple inside further exacerbating the syntactic situation. There is some upside to this too, however: at least we don't need to scratch our had where to split the expressions since GHC does that for us.
For some reason, the tuple only seemed to accept Booleans. Weird, I suspect this should be possible to fix somehow.
Pretty pretty-printing Exp is not very straight-forward. A more complete solution does require a parser after all.
Printing an AST scrubs the original formatting for a more uniform looks. I hoped to preserve the expressions letter-by-letter in the output.
The deal-breaker was the syntactic over-head. I knew I could get to a simpler solution like [d|a, a+1|] because I have seen that API provided in other packages. I was trying to remember where I saw that syntax. What is the name...?
String -> Exp
Quasi Quotation is the name, I remember!
I remembered seeing packages with heredocs and interpolated strings, like:
string = [qq|The quick {"brown"} $f {"jumps " ++ o} the $num ...|]
where f = "fox"; o = "over"; num = 3
Which, as far as I knew, during compile-time, turns into
string = "The quick " ++ "brown" ++ " " ++ $f ++ "jumps " ++ o ++ " the" ++ show num ++ " ..."
where f = "fox"; o = "over"; num = 3
And I thought to myself: if they can do it, I should be able to do it too!
A bit of digging in their source code revealed the QuasiQuoter type.
data QuasiQuoter = QuasiQuoter {quoteExp :: String -> Q Exp}
Bingo, this is what I want! Give me the source code as string! Ideally, I wouldn't mind returning string either, but maybe this will work. At this point I still know quite little about Q Exp.
After all, in theory, I would just need to split the string on commas, map over it, duplicate the elements so that first part stays string and the second part becomes Haskell source code, which is passed to show.
Turning this:
[d|a+1|]
into this:
"a+1" ++ " = " ++ show (a+1)
Sounds easy, right?
Well, it turns out that even though GHC most obviously is capable to parse haskell source code, it doesn't expose that function. Or not in any way we know of.
I find it strange that we need a third-party package (which thankfully there is at least one called haskell-src-meta) to parse haskell source code for meta programming. Looks to me such an obvious duplication of logic, and potential source of mismatch -- resulting in bugs.
Reluctantly, I started looking into it. After all, if it is good enough for the interpolated-string folks (those packaged did rely on haskell-src-meta) then maybe it will work okay for me too for the time being.
And alas, it does contain the desired function:
Language.Haskell.Meta.Parse.parseExp :: String -> Either String Exp
Language.Haskell.Meta.Parse
From this point it was rather straightforward, except for splitting on commas.
Right now, I do a very simple split on all commas, but that doesn't account for this case:
[d|(1, 2), 3|]
Which fails unfortunatelly. To handle this, I begun writing a parsec parser (again) which turned out to be more difficult than anticipated (again). At this point, I am open to suggestions. Maybe you know of a simple parser that handles the different edge-cases? If so, tell me in a comment, please! I plan on resolving this issue with or without parsec.
But for the most use-cases: it works.
Update at 2015-06-20
Version 0.2.1 and later correctly parses expressions even if they contain commas inside them. Meaning [d|(1, 2), 3|] and similar expressions are now supported.
You can
install it via cabal install dump
and/or
read the source code
Conclusion
During the last week I've learnt quite a bit of Template Haskell and QuasiQuotation, cabal sandboxes, publishing a package to hackage, building haddock docs and publishing them, and some things about Haskell too.
It's been fun.
And perhaps most importantly, I now am able to use this tool for debugging and development, the absence of which has been bugging me for some time. Peace at last.
Thank you #kqr, your engagement with my original question and attempt at solving it gave me enough spark and motivation to continue writing up a full solution.
I've actually almost solved the problem now. Not exactly what you imagined, but fairly close. Maybe someone else can use this as a basis for a better version. Either way, with
{-# LANGUAGE TemplateHaskell, LambdaCase #-}
import Language.Haskell.TH
dump :: ExpQ -> ExpQ
dump tuple =
listE . map dumpExpr . getElems =<< tuple
where
getElems = \case { TupE xs -> xs; _ -> error "not a tuple in splice!" }
dumpExpr exp = [| $(litE (stringL (pprint exp))) ++ " = " ++ show $(return exp)|]
you get the ability to do something like
λ> let x = True
λ> print $(dump [|(not x, x, x == True)|])
["GHC.Classes.not x_1627412787 = False","x_1627412787 = True","x_1627412787 GHC.Classes.== GHC.Types.True = True"]
which is almost what you wanted. As you see, it's a problem that the pprint function includes module prefixes and such, which makes the result... less than ideally readable. I don't yet know of a fix for that, but other than that I think it is fairly usable.
It's a bit syntactically heavy, but that is because it's using the regular [| quote syntax in Haskell. If one wanted to write their own quasiquoter, as you suggest, I'm pretty sure one would also have to re-implement parsing Haskell, which would suck a bit.
I have an assignment which is to create a calculator program in Haskell. For example, users will be able to use the calculator by command lines like:
>var cola =5; //define a random variable
>cola*2+1;
(print 11)
>var pepsi = 10
>coca > pepsi;
(print false)
>def coke(x,y) = x+y; //define a random function
>coke(cola,pepsi);
(print 15)
//and actually it's more complicated than above
I have no clue how to program this in Haskell. All I can think of right now is to read the command line as a String, parse it into an array of tokens. Maybe go through the array, detect keywords such "var", "def" then call functions var, def which store variables/functions in a List or something like that. But then how do I store data so that I can use them later in my computation?
Also am I on the right track because I am actually very confused what to do next? :(
*In addition, I am not allowed to use Parsec!*
It looks like you have two distinct kinds of input: declarations (creating new variables and functions) and expressions (calculating things).
You should first define some data structures so you can work out what sort of things you are going to be dealing with. Something like:
data Command = Define Definition | Calculate Expression | Quit
type Name = String
data Definition = DefVar Name Expression | DefFunc Name [Name] Expression
-- ^ alternatively, implement variables as zero-argument functions
-- and merge these cases
data Expression = Var Name | Add Expression Expression | -- ... other stuff
type Environment = [Definition]
To start off with, just parse (tokenise and then parse the tokens, perhaps) the stuff into a Command, and then decide what to do with it.
Expressions are comparatively easy. You assume you already have all the definitions you need (an Environment) and then just look up any variables or do additions or whatever.
Definitions are a bit trickier. Once you've decided what new definition to make, you need to add it to the environment. How exactly you do this depends on how exactly you iterate through the lines, but you'll need to pass the new environment back from the interpreter to the thing which fetches the next line and runs the interpreter on it. Something like:
main :: IO ()
main = mainLoop emptyEnv
where
emptyEnv = []
mainLoop :: Environment -> IO ()
mainLoop env = do
str <- getLine
case parseCommnad str of
Nothing -> do
putStrLn "parse failed!"
mainLoop env
Just Quit -> do
return ()
Just (Define d) -> do
mainLoop (d : env)
Just (Calculate e) -> do
putStrLn (calc env e)
mainLoop env
-- the real meat:
parseCommand :: String -> Maybe Command
calc :: Environment -> Expression -> String -- or Integer or some other appropriate type
calc will need to look stuff up in the environment you create as you go along, so you'll probably also need a function for finding which Definition corresponds to a given Name (or complaining that there isn't one).
Some other decisions you should make:
What do I do when someone tries to redefine a variable?
What if I used one of those variables in the definition of a function? Do I evaluate a function definition when it is created or when it is used?
These questions may affect the design of the above program, but I'll leave it up to you to work out how.
First, you can learn a lot from this tutorial for haskell programming
You need to write your function in another doc with .hs
And you can load the file from you compiler and use all the function you create
For example
plus :: Int -> Int -- that mean the function just work with a number of type int and return Int
plus x y = x + y -- they receive x and y and do the operation
Am still new to Haskell, so apologize if there is an obvious answer to this...
I would like to make a function that splits up the all following lists of strings i.e. [String]:
["int x = 1", "y := x + 123"]
["int x= 1", "y:= x+123"]
["int x=1", "y:=x+123"]
All into the same string of strings i.e. [[String]]:
[["int", "x", "=", "1"], ["y", ":=", "x", "+", "123"]]
You can use map words.lines for the first [String].
But I do not know any really neat ways to also take into account the others - where you would be using the various sub-strings "=", ":=", "+" etc. to break up the main string.
Thank you for taking the time to enlighten me on Haskell :-)
The Prelude comes with a little-known handy function called lex, which is a lexer for Haskell expressions. These match the form you need.
lex :: String -> [(String,String)]
What a weird type though! The list is there for interfacing with a standard type of parser, but I'm pretty sure lex always returns either 1 or 0 elements (0 indicating a parse failure). The tuple is (token-lexed, rest-of-input), so lex only pulls off one token. So a simple way to lex a whole string would be:
lexStr :: String -> [String]
lexStr "" = []
lexStr s =
case lex s of
[(tok,rest)] -> tok : lexStr rest
[] -> error "Failed lex"
To appease the pedants, this code is in terrible form. An explicit call to error instead of returning a reasonable error using Maybe, assuming lex only returns 1 or 0 elements, etc. The code that does this reliably is about the same length, but is significantly more abstract, so I spared your beginner eyes.
I would take a look at parsec and build a simple grammar for parsing your strings.
how about using words .)
words :: String -> [String]
and words wont care for whitespaces..
words "Hello World"
= words "Hello World"
= ["Hello", "World"]