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 linestring [c] = do char c; return [c]it won't work anymore. I was expecting thatstring (c:s)would handlestring (c:[])properly. What could be the cause here?In my opinion,
stringdefinition should be equivalent tostring s = mapM char sas it would create a list of[Parser Char]for each character insand collect the results asParser [Char]. If I use the definition based onmapM, 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.