I have a type called PartialDate
Then I have a function
readPartialDate :: String -> Maybe PartialDate
Bit of test code
main = do
[d] <- getArgs
return $ show $ readPartialDate d
runhaskell PartialDate.hs "12-2-2010"
"Just 12-2-2010"
All OK
Then I create a read simply by dispatching on readPartialDate:
instance Read PartialDate where
readsPrec _ s = case (readPartialDate s) of
Nothing -> []
Just p -> [(p, s)]
Test code:
main = do
[d] <- getArgs
return $ show $ ((read d) :: PartialDate)
runHaskell PartialDate.hs 12-2-2010
PartialDate.hs: Prelude.read: no parse
Does anyone know why putting a working function into a read might give rise to a parse error?
readPartialDate uses Parsec, and also uses reverse, so might there be a laziness issue here?
The problem is that in the definition of readsPrec,
readsPrec _ s = case (readPartialDate s) of
Nothing -> []
Just p -> [(p, s)]
you give the input String itself as the second component of the readsPrec result pair. read requires that the reads result have the second component empty, meaning that the entire input has been consumed to determine the value (in general, when you write Read instances, make sure you don't forget to consume trailing whitespace). Change the instance to
readsPrec _ s = case (readPartialDate s) of
Nothing -> []
Just p -> [(p, "")]
and it should work.
Related
I'm trying to learn how to work with IO in Haskell by writing a function that, if there is a flag, will take a list of points from a file, and if there is no flag, it asks the user to enter them.
dispatch :: [String] -> IO ()
dispatch argList = do
if "file" `elem` argList
then do
let (path : otherArgs) = argList
points <- getPointsFile path
else
print "Enter a point in the format: x;y"
input <- getLine
if (input == "exit")
then do
print "The user inputted list:"
print $ reverse xs
else (inputStrings (input:xs))
if "help" `elem` argList
then help
else return ()
dispatch [] = return ()
dispatch _ = error "Error: invalid args"
getPointsFile :: String -> IO ([(Double, Double)])
getPointsFile path = do
handle <- openFile path ReadMode
contents <- hGetContents handle
let points_str = lines contents
let points = foldl (\l d -> l ++ [tuplify2 $ splitOn ";" d]) [] points_str
hClose handle
return points
I get this: do-notation in pattern Possibly caused by a missing 'do'?` after `if "file" `elem` argList.
I'm also worried about the binding issue, assuming that I have another flag that says which method will be used to process the points. Obviously it waits for points, but I don't know how to make points visible not only in if then else, constructs. In imperative languages I would write something like:
init points
if ... { points = a}
else points = b
some actions with points
How I can do something similar in Haskell?
Here's a fairly minimal example that I've done half a dozen times when I'm writing something quick and dirty, don't have a complicated argument structure, and so can't be bothered to do a proper job of setting up one of the usual command-line parsing libraries. It doesn't explain what went wrong with your approach -- there's an existing good answer there -- it's just an attempt to show what this kind of thing looks like when done idiomatically.
import System.Environment
import System.Exit
import System.IO
main :: IO ()
main = do
args <- getArgs
pts <- case args of
["--help"] -> usage stdout ExitSuccess
["--file", f] -> getPointsFile f
[] -> getPointsNoFile
_ -> usage stderr (ExitFailure 1)
print (frobnicate pts)
usage :: Handle -> ExitCode -> IO a
usage h c = do
nm <- getProgName
hPutStrLn h $ "Usage: " ++ nm ++ " [--file FILE]"
hPutStrLn h $ "Frobnicate the points in FILE, or from stdin if no file is supplied."
exitWith c
getPointsFile :: FilePath -> IO [(Double, Double)]
getPointsFile = {- ... -}
getPointsNoFile :: IO [(Double, Double)]
getPointsNoFile = {- ... -}
frobnicate :: [(Double, Double)] -> Double
frobnicate = {- ... -}
if in Haskell doesn't inherently have anything to do with control flow, it just switches between expressions. Which, in Haskell, happen to include do blocks of statements (if we want to call them that), but you still always need to make that explicit, i.e. you need to say both then do and else do if there are multiple statements in each branch.
Also, all the statements in a do block need to be indented to the same level. So in your case
if "file" `elem` argList
...
if "help" `elem` argList
Or alternatively, if the help check should only happen in the else branch, it needs to be indented to the statements in that do block.
Independent of all that, I would recommend to avoid parsing anything in an IO context. It is usually much less hassle and easier testable to first parse the strings into a pure data structure, which can then easily be processed by the part of the code that does IO. There are libraries like cmdargs and optparse-applicative that help with the parsing part.
I have revisited Haskell lateley and constructed a toy programming language parser/interpreter. Using Parsec for lexing and parsing and a separate interpreter. I'm running in to some issues with feeding the result from the parser to my interpreter and handle the potential error from both the interpreter and parser. I end up with something like this:
main = do
fname <- getArgs
input <- readFile (head fname)
case lparse (head fname) input of
Left msg -> putStrLn $ show msg
Right p -> case intrp p of
Left msg -> putStrLn $ show msg
Right r -> putStrLn $ show r
This dosn't look pretty at all. My problem is that lparse returns Either ParseError [(String, Stmt)] and itrp returns the type Either ItrpError Stmt so I'm having a real hard time feeding the Right result from the parser to the interpreter and at the same time bail and print the possible ParseError or IntrpError.
The closest to what i want is something like this
main = do
fname <- getArgs
input <- readFile (head fname)
let prog = lparse (head fname) input
(putStrLn . show) (intrp <$> prog)
But this will not surprisingly yield a nested Either and not print pretty either.
So are there any nice Haskell ideomatic way of doing this threading results from one computation to another and handling errors (Lefts) in a nice way without nesting cases?
Edit
adding types of lparse and itrp
lparse :: Text.Parsec.Pos.SourceName -> String -> Either Text.Parsec.Error.ParseError [([Char], Stmt)]
intrp :: [([Char], Stmt)] -> Either IntrpError Stmt
While not perfect, I'd create a helper function for embedding any Showable error from Either into MonadError:
{-# LANGUAGE FlexibleContexts #-}
import Control.Monad.Except
strErr :: (MonadError String m, Show e) => Either e a -> m a
strErr = either (throwError . show) return
Then if you have a computation that can fail with errors, like
someFn :: ExceptT String IO ()
someFn = strErr (Left 42)
you can run it (printing errors to stdout) as
main :: IO ()
main = runExceptT someFn >>= either putStrLn return
In your case it'd be something like
main = either putStrLn return <=< runExceptT $ do
fname <- liftIO getArgs
input <- liftIO $ readFile (head fname)
prog <- strErr $ lparse (head fname) input
r <- strErr $ interp prog
print r
Well, if you want to chain successful computations, you can always use >>= to do that. For instance in your case:
lparse (head fname) input >>= intrp
And if you want to print out either your error message you can use the either class that takes two handler functions, one for the case when you have Left a (error in your case) and another for Right b (in your case a successful thing). An example:
either (putStrLn . show) (putStrLn . show) (lparse (head fname) input >>= intrp)
And if anything fails in your chain (any step of your monadic chain becomes Left a) it stops and can for instance print out the error message in the above case.
Using Parsec how does one indicate an error at a specific position if a semantic rule is violated. I know typically we don't want to do such things, but consider the example grammar.
<foo> ::= <bar> | ...
<bar> ::= a positive integer power of two
The <bar> rule is a finite set (my example is arbitrary), and a pure approach to the above could be a careful application of the choice combinator, but this might be impractical in space and time. In recursive descent or toolkit-generated parsers the standard trick is to parse an integer (a more relaxed grammar) and then semantically check the harder constraints. For Parsec, I could use a natural parser and check the result calling fail when that doesn't match or unexpected or whatever. But if we do that, the default error location is the wrong one. Somehow I need to raise the error at the earlier state.
I tried a brute force solution and wrote a combinator that uses getPosition and setPosition as illustrated by this very similar question. Of course, I was also unsuccessful (the error location is, of course wrong). I've run into this pattern many times. I am kind of looking for this type of combinator:
withPredicate :: (a -> Bool) -> String -> P a -> P a
withPredicate pred lbl p = do
ok <- lookAhead $ fmap pred (try p) <|> return False -- peek ahead
if ok then p -- consume the input if the value passed the predicate
else fail lbl -- otherwise raise the error at the *start* of this token
pPowerOfTwo = withPredicate isPowerOfTwo "power of two" natural
where isPowerOfTwo = (`elem` [2^i | i<-[1..20]])
The above does not work. (I tried variants on this as well.) Somehow the parser backtracks a says it's expecting a digit. I assume it's returning the error that made it the furthest. Even {get,set}ParserState fails erase that memory.
Am I handling this syntactic pattern wrong? How would all you Parsec users approach these type of problems?
Thanks!
I think both your ideas are OK. The other two answers deal with Parsec, but I'd like to note that in both
cases Megaparsec just does the right thing:
{-# LANGUAGE TypeApplications #-}
module Main (main) where
import Control.Monad
import Data.Void
import Text.Megaparsec
import qualified Text.Megaparsec.Char.Lexer as L
type Parser = Parsec Void String
withPredicate1 :: (a -> Bool) -> String -> Parser a -> Parser a
withPredicate1 f msg p = do
r <- lookAhead p
if f r
then p
else fail msg
withPredicate2 :: (a -> Bool) -> String -> Parser a -> Parser a
withPredicate2 f msg p = do
mpos <- getNextTokenPosition -- †
r <- p
if f r
then return r
else do
forM_ mpos setPosition
fail msg
main :: IO ()
main = do
let msg = "I only like numbers greater than 42!"
parseTest' (withPredicate1 #Integer (> 42) msg L.decimal) "11"
parseTest' (withPredicate2 #Integer (> 42) msg L.decimal) "22"
If I run it:
The next big Haskell project is about to start!
λ> :main
1:1:
|
1 | 11
| ^
I only like numbers greater than 42!
1:1:
|
1 | 22
| ^
I only like numbers greater than 42!
λ>
Try it for yourself! Works as expected.
† getNextTokenPosition is more correct than getPosition for streams where tokens contain position of their beginning and end in themselves. This may or may not be important in your case.
It's not a solution I like, but you can hypnotize Parsec into believing it's had a single failure with consumption:
failAt pos msg = mkPT (\_ -> return (Consumed (return $ Error $ newErrorMessage (Expect msg) pos)))
Here's a complete example:
import Control.Monad
import Text.Parsec
import Text.Parsec.Char
import Text.Parsec.Error
import Text.Parsec.Prim
import Debug.Trace
failAt pos msg = mkPT (\_ -> return (Consumed (return $ Error $ newErrorMessage (Expect msg) pos)))
type P a = Parsec String () a
withPredicate :: (a -> Bool) -> String -> P a -> P a
withPredicate pred msg p = do
pos <- getPosition
x <- p
unless (pred x) $ failAt pos msg
return x
natural = read <$> many1 digit
pPowerOfTwo = withPredicate isPowerOfTwo "power of two" natural
where isPowerOfTwo = (`elem` [2^i | i<-[1..20]])
main = print $ runParser pPowerOfTwo () "myinput" "4095"
When run, it results in:
Left "myinput" (line 1, column 1):
expecting power of two
I think the problem stems from how Parsec picks the "best error" in the non-deterministic setting. See Text.Parsec.Error.mergeError. Specifically, this selects the longest match when choosing which error is the error to report. I think we need some way to make Parsec order errors differently, which may be too obscure for us solving this problem.
In my case, I here's how I worked around the problem:
I solved stacked an Exception monad within my ParsecT type.
type P m = P.ParsecT String ParSt (ExceptT Diagnostic m)
Then I introduced a pair of combinators:
(Note: Loc is my internal location type)
-- stops hard on an error (no backtracking)
-- which is why I say "semantic" instead of "syntax" error
throwSemanticError :: (MonadTrans t, Monad m) => Loc -> String -> t (ExceptT Diagnostic m) a
throwSemanticError loc msg = throwSemanticErrorDiag $! Diagnostic loc msg
withLoc :: Monad m => (Loc -> P m a) -> P m a
withLoc pa = getLoc >>= pa
Now in parsing I can write:
parsePrimeNumber = withLoc $ \loc ->
i <- parseInt
unless (isPrime i) $ throwSemanticError loc "number is not prime!"
return i
The top level interface to run one of these monads is really nasty.
runP :: Monad m
=> ParseOpts
-> P m a
-> String
-> m (ParseResult a)
runP pos pma inp =
case runExceptT (P.runParserT pma (initPSt pos) "" inp) of
mea -> do
ea <- mea
case ea of
-- semantic error (throwSemanticError)
Left err -> return $! PError err
-- regular parse error
Right (Left err) -> return $ PError (errToDiag err)
-- success
Right (Right a) -> return (PSuccess a [])
I'm not terribly happy with this solution and desire something better.
I wish parsec had a:
semanticCheck :: (a -> Parsec Bool) -> Parsec a -> Parsec a
semanticCheck pred p =
a <- p
z <- pred a
unless z $
... somehow raise the error from the beginning of this token/parse
rather than the end ... and when propagating the error up,
use the end parse position, so this parse error beats out other
failed parsers that make it past the beginning of this token
(but not to the end)
return a
Using lookAhead, we can run a parser without consuming any input or registering any new errors, but record the state that we end up in. We can then apply a guard to the result of the parser. The guard can fail in whatever manner it desires if the value does not pass the semantic check. If the guard fails, then the error is located at the initial position. If the guard succeeds, we reset the parser to the recorded state, avoiding the need to re-execute p.
guardP :: Stream s m t => (a -> ParsecT s u m ()) -> ParsecT s u m a -> ParsecT s u m a
guardP guard p = do
(a, s) <- try . lookAhead $ do
a <- p
s <- getParserState
return (a, s)
guard a
setParserState s
return a
We can now implement pPowerOfTwo:
pPowerOfTwo :: Stream s m Char => ParsecT s u m Integer
pPowerOfTwo = guardP guardPowerOfTwo natural <?> "power of two"
where guardPowerOfTwo s = unless (s `elem` [2^i | i <- [1..20]]) . unexpected $ show s
I started with programming in Haskell about 4 month ago and now I came to the point where I have to deal with the IO system of Haskell.
I already did a lot of IO actions and haven't faced any problems I couldn't solve by myself, but this time I googled for almost two hours for no avail to get some information about the function readMaybe. So I have the following problem set to solve and I already tried a lot of different approaches to solve it but all the time I get the same failure message from my compiler:
No instance for (Read a0) arising from a use of `readMaybe'
The type variable `a0' is ambiguous
I understand what the compiler does want to tell me but I have no idea how to solve this problem. I already tried to add a class constraint, but without success.
So here is my very small and simple program that is just counting how many valid numbers the user has entered. The program is meant to terminate when the user enters an empty line.
This is just a auxiliary function I want to use for my project later on.
countNumbers :: IO Int
countNumbers = do
x <- count 0
return x where
count :: Int -> IO Int
count n = do
line <- getLine
case line of
"" -> do
return n
_ -> case readMaybe line of
Just _ -> do
x <- count (n+1)
return x
Nothing -> do
x <- count n
return x
Unfortunately I couldn't find out a lot of informations about the function readMaybe. The only thing I could find was in the Haskell library Text.Read:
readMaybe :: Read a => String -> Maybe aSource
Parse a string using the Read instance. Succeeds if there is exactly one valid result.
The very weird thing for me is that I have already written such a function that uses the readMaybe function and it worked perfectly ...
This program is just asking the user for a number and keeps asking as long as the user enters a valid number
getLineInt :: IO Int
getLineInt = do
putStrLn "Please enter your guess"
line <- getLine
case readMaybe line of
Just x -> do
return x
Nothing -> do
putStrLn "Invalid number entered"
x <- getLineInt
return x
So far as I can see there are no differences between the usage of the function readMaybe in the two programs and therefore it works in the one but not in the other :)
I would be really thankful for any hints from you!!
This has nothing to do with IO, so maybe you don't understand what the compiler is trying to tell you. There is a type variable a in readMaybe's signature; a has to have a Read instance, but other than that it can be anything. The compiler is telling you that it doesn't have any way to determine what you want a to be.
In getLineInt you don't have this problem, because you are returning the result of readMaybe and the type signature says it should be Int. In countNumbers, you're not using the result of readMaybe, so there's nothing that can be used to determine the correct type. You can fix this by adding an explicit type signature (I picked Int since you're apparently counting numbers):
_ -> case readMaybe line :: Maybe Int of
Finally a word about do notation: it's just syntactic sugar, you don't have to use it all the time. Instead of do return x you can simply write return x, and instead of
x <- getLineInt
return x
you can simply do
getLineInt
That makes things more readable:
getLineInt :: IO Int
getLineInt = do
putStrLn "Please enter your guess"
line <- getLine
case readMaybe line of
Just x -> return x
Nothing -> putStrLn "Invalid number entered" >> getLineInt
Why does this happen?
In your second function, it is clear that readMaybe line is used as String -> Maybe Int, since type inference notices that you use return x and therefore x must be an Int.
In your first function, you don't use the Maybe's value at all, you just want to check whether the read succeeded. However, since you didn't specify the type (neither explicit nor implicit with type inference), the type variable is ambiguous:
_ -> case readMaybe line of
There's an easy fix: annotate the type:
_ -> case readMaybe line :: Maybe Int of
By the way, this is exactly the same behaviour you encounter when you use read in ghci without any type context:
> read "1234"
<interactive>:10:1:
No instance for (Read a0) arising from a use of `read'
The type variable `a0' is ambiguous
As soon as you make the type clear everything is fine:
> read "1234" :: Int
1234
Making things clear
Now that we've seen why the error happens, lets make this program much simpler. First of all, we're going to use a custom readMaybe:
readMaybeInt :: String -> Maybe Int
readMaybeInt = readMaybe
Now how does one count numbers? Numbers are those words, where readMaybeInt doesn't return Nothing:
countNumbers :: String -> Int
countNumbers = length . filter isJust . map readMaybeInt . words
How does one now calculate the numbers in the standard input? We simply take input until one line is completely empty, map countNumbers on all those lines and then sum:
lineNumberCount :: IO Int
lineNumberCount =
getContents >>= return . sum . map countNumbers . takeWhile (/= "") . lines
If you're not used to the bind methods, that's basically
lineNumberCount :: IO Int
lineNumberCount = do
input <- getContents
return . sum . map countNumbers . takeWhile (/= "") . lines $ input
All in all we get the following terse solution:
import Control.Monad (liftM)
import Data.Maybe (isJust)
import Text.Read (readMaybe)
readMaybeInt :: String -> Maybe Int
readMaybeInt = readMaybe
countNumbers :: String -> Int
countNumbers = length . filter isJust . map readMaybeInt . words
lineNumberCount :: IO Int
lineNumberCount =
getContents >>= return . sum . map countNumbers . takeWhile (/= "") . lines
Now there's only one function working in the IO monad, and all functions are basically applications of standard functions. Note that getContents will close the handle to the standard input. If you want to use you're better of using something like
input :: String -> IO [String]
input delim = do
ln <- getLine
if ln == delim then return []
else input delim >>= return . (ln:)
which will extract lines until a line matching delim has been found. Note that you need to change lineNumberCount in this case:
lineNumberCount :: IO Int
lineNumberCount =
input "" >>= return . sum . map countNumbers
I'm completely new to Yesod (and not very experienced in haskell) and I'm trying to build my first handler. I scraffolded my app using default parameters (I'm using Yesod 0.9.4.1 version and choose postgresql in scraffolding) and now I'm trying to retrieve some data from a table using selectList. I defined a new table (let's call it Foo) in models config file:
Foo
xStart Int
yStart Int
and want to pass a list of FooId's and some other Foo attributes so I defined a route:
/foos/#Int/#Int/*FooId FoosReturnR GET
and a handler:
module Handler.FoosReturn where
import Import
selectWindowSize :: Int
selectWindowSize = 10000
getFoosReturnR :: Int -> Int -> [FooId] -> Handler RepPlain
getFoosReturnR x y withoutIds = do
foos <- runDB $ selectList [FooId /<-. withoutIds,
FooXStart <. x + selectWindowSize,
FooXStart >=. x - selectWindowSize,
FooYStart <. y + selectWindowSize,
FooYStart >=. y - selectWindowSize] []
return $ RepPlain $ toContent $ show foos
I imported the handler in Application.hs and added it to cabal file and now when I'm trying to run it I receive an error saying that FooId is not an instance of MultiPiece - but when I try to make it an instance there is an error saying that FooId is a type synonym and cannot be an instance of MultiPiece - how to resolve this problem?
EDIT:
Daniel: well, actually I don't know what exactly is FooId - it's a part of Yesod's magic which I don't fully understand so far - it's generated automatically from the table definition - but it's a some kind of a number.
Because I don't know how to use MultiPiece I switched to simpler solution and modified:
route: /foos/#Int/#Int/#String FoosReturnR GET
handler: [added also some logging]
module Handler.FoosReturn where
import Import
import Data.List.Split
import qualified Data.Text.Lazy as TL
selectWindowSize :: Int
selectWindowSize = 10000
getFoosReturnR :: Int -> Int -> String -> Handler RepPlain
getFoosReturnR x y withoutIds = do
app <- getYesod
liftIO $ logLazyText (getLogger app) ("getFoosReturnR('" `TL.append` (TL.pack $ (show x) ++ "', '" ++ (show y) ++ "', '" ++ withoutIds ++ "') "))
foos <- runDB $ selectList [FooId /<-. (map (\a -> read a :: FooId) $ splitOn "," withoutIds),
FooXStart <. x + selectWindowSize,
FooXStart >=. x - selectWindowSize,
FooYStart <. y + selectWindowSize,
FooYStart >=. y - selectWindowSize] []
return $ RepPlain $ toContent $ show foos
and now it is compiling but when I browse to: http://localhost:3000/sectors/1/1/1,2 I get a page containing only:
Internal Server Error
Prelude.read: no parse
Well, I don't fully understand what is FooId here - how to create such a list of FooId's from list of strings containing numbers?
And of course a solution of how to make the FooId an instance of MultiPiece is most wanted.
EDIT:
Daniel and svachalek, thanks for your posts - I tried your (Daniel's) solution but then I was receiving errors saying that [FooId] is expected (as in the handler function declaration) but FooId type was given and this lead me to the following solution:
data FooIds = FooIds [FooId] deriving (Show, Read, Eq)
instance MultiPiece FooIds where
toMultiPiece (FooIds fooList) = map (Data.Text.pack . show) fooList
fromMultiPiece texts =
if length (filter isNothing listOfMaybeFooId) > 0
then Nothing
else Just $ FooIds $ map fromJust listOfMaybeFooId
where
listOfMaybeFooId = map constructMaybeFooId texts
constructMaybeFooId :: Text -> Maybe FooId
constructMaybeFooId x = case reads (Data.Text.unpack x) :: [(FooId,String)] of
[(foo,_)] -> Just foo
_ -> Nothing
of course I changed the route to: /foos/#Int/#Int/*FooIds FoosReturnR GET
and the handler to:
getFoosReturnR :: Int -> Int -> FooIds -> Handler RepPlain
getFoosReturnR coordX coordY (FooIds withoutIds) = do
and now I don't get any errors during compilation nor runtime, and the only not satisfying thing is that I always receive Not Found as a result, even if I supply parameters that should give me some results - so now I have to figure out how to determine what SQL was exactly sent to the database
EDIT:
Now I see that the "Not Found" is connected to the problem and that the above edit is not a solution - when I browse to localhost:3000/foos/4930000/3360000 then I get the results (but then the FooIds is empty) - but when I add something like: localhost:3000/sectors/4930000/3360000/1 then I always get "Not Found" - so it's still not working..
Wish I could help, but yesod has something to do with web applications, as far as I know, hence I've never really looked at it. So I can just try a stab in the air, maybe I hit something.
Hayoo leads to
class MultiPiece s where
fromMultiPiece :: [Text] -> Maybe s
toMultiPiece :: s -> [Text]
in Yesod.Dispatch. Since FooId seems to have a Read instance and probably a Show instance, you could try
{-# LANGUAGE TypeSynonymInstances #-}
-- maybe also FlexibleInstances
instance MultiPiece FooId where
toMultiPiece foo = [Text.pack $ show foo]
fromMultiPiece texts =
case reads (unpack $ Text.concat texts) :: [(FooId,String)] of
[(foo,_)] -> Just foo
_ -> Nothing
I have no idea whether that is close to the right thing, and I would have posted it as a comment, but it's too long and there's not much formatting in comments. If it doesn't help I will delete it to not give the impression your question already has an answer when it hasn't.
The problem is solved:)
You could either use my implementation from one of the last edits of the question and browse to URL like: http://localhost:3000/foos/4930000/3360000/Key {unKey = PersistInt64 3}/Key {unKey = PersistInt64 4}
The Key type derives Read but not in a very friendly (and expected) way:)
Or change the implementation of fromMultiPiece to:
instance MultiPiece FooIds where
toMultiPiece (FooIds fooList) = map (Data.Text.pack . show) fooList
fromMultiPiece texts =
if length (filter isNothing listOfMaybeFooId) > 0
then Nothing
else Just $ FooIds $ map fromJust listOfMaybeFooId
where
listOfMaybeFooId = map constructMaybeFooId texts
constructMaybeFooId :: Text -> Maybe FooId
constructMaybeFooId x = case TR.decimal x of
Left err -> Nothing
Right (el,_) -> Just $ Key (PersistInt64 el)
and use URLs like: http://localhost:3000/foos/4930000/3360000/1/2
Many thanks to David McBride from the Yesod Web Framework Google Group
EDIT: the above solution had only one disadvantage - using the PersistInt64 type - it's not a good practice to use such a details of implementation, but it can be repaired by using fromPersistValue and toPersistValue functions from Database.Persist as follows:
instance MultiPiece FooIds where
toMultiPiece (FooIds fooList) = map (persistValuetoText . unKey) fooList
where
persistValuetoText x = case fromPersistValue x of
Left _ -> Data.Text.pack ""
Right val -> Data.Text.pack $ show (val::Int)
fromMultiPiece texts =
if length (filter isNothing listOfMaybeFooId) > 0
then Nothing
else Just $ FooIds $ map fromJust listOfMaybeFooId
where
listOfMaybeFooId = map constructMaybeFooId texts
constructMaybeFooId :: Text -> Maybe FooId
constructMaybeFooId x = case TR.decimal x of
Left _ -> Nothing
Right (el,_) -> Just $ Key (toPersistValue (el :: Int))
Again, big thanks to David McBride also for this!
I'm also fairly new to Yesod and I gave in and added -XTypeSynonymInstances to the ghc-options in my .cabal file, and so far it's made life a lot easier for me. I'm not sure if it's the most elegant answer to this particular problem, but otherwise I predict you'll run into that instance-of-alias error pretty frequently. P.S. try id = (Key (PersistInt 64 n))