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.
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
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.
In the code at the bottom, two monadic actions (loadModules and setImportsQ) in Hint (Language.Haskell.Interpreter) can only be executed in one order but not the other, as shown in a minimal example below. In particular, loadModules must go first, or else the following exception will be generated when executing the interpreter.
*** Exception: compile error: WontCompile [GhcError {errMsg = "Not in scope: type
constructor or class `Int'"}]
This behavior seems to have been introduced in Hint 0.4.1.0. I must have missed something obvious..
My first questions is Hint specific: why must loadModules be called before setImportsQ?
My second question is more general: it seems that these two monadic actions do NOT feed input into each other, also the to-be-loaded module is empty, why is the order or execution important at all? This almost reminds me of the imperative world, where you not only have to worry about the input/output, but also the order of certain side effects.
The code is below. Note that MyModule.hs is an empty .hs file.
module Main where
import Language.Haskell.Interpreter
import Control.Monad
custom=["MyModule"] --mymodule.hs is just an empty .hs source file in the same folder
context=[("Data.Int",Nothing)]
main = do
x <- interp ("1") (as ::Int)
return ()
interp e as_type = do
interpreterResult <- runInterpreter $ do
loadModules custom --this line must go first
setImportsQ context --this line must go second
interpret e as_type
f <- case interpreterResult of
Left e -> error $ "compile error: " ++ show e
Right result -> return result
return f
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
I've decided to teach myself Haskell and I have never been so frustrated in all my life. I am going through the tutorial at http://lisperati.com/haskell/ which is the easiest one I could find. All that I am trying to do is read a text file called people.txt which contains a list of numbers and print the length of the list. This code is straight from the tutorial.
import Data.List
type Person = [Int]
main = do
people_text <- readFile "people.txt"
let people :: [Person]
people = read people_text
putStr "Number of people "
putStr (length people_text)
When I try to run the file with runHaskell tutorial03.hs I get this error message
tutorial03.hs:9:13:
Illegal signature in pattern: [Person] people
Use -XScopedTypeVariables to permit it
Using the XScopedTypeVariables flag I get
tutorial03.hs:10:17: Not in scope: type variable `people'
Could someone please explain what I am doing wrong.
Luqui's right that indentation is the issue. The compiler is treating your definition as if it were
let people :: [Person] people = read people_text
which does indeed look like you're writing a type signature in a pattern (and using people both as the function name and a pattern variable, to boot -- peculiar but permitted!).
Crucially, let is a layout keyword, introducing a block of lines which should all be indented to the same horizontal position. By following the signature with a more-indented line, you indicate that you're contuing the line with the signature, rather than starting a new line for the actual definition. If you don't like this fussy layout convention, you can use noisy semicolons.
If you want your definition to be treated as two lines, you either need to be careful to line up the peoples vertically...
let people :: [Person]
people = read people_text
or to signal the line ending explicitly with a semicolon.
let people :: [Person] ;
people = read people_text
The former would be preferable, although I expect most Haskellers would just supply a type annotation for read people_text rather than a signature for the definition, like this:
let people = read people_text :: [Person]
Once you've fixed that, you'll need to contend with the fact that the length of the list is a number, but putStr outputs strings. The print command may be more useful for this purpose.
change it to this, works for me:
...
let people :: [Person]
people = read people_text
...
print (length people_text)