Entries:
Comments:
Posts:

Loading User Information from Channel 9

Something went wrong getting user information from Channel 9

Latest Achievement:

Loading User Information from MSDN

Something went wrong getting user information from MSDN

Visual Studio Achievements

Latest Achievement:

Loading Visual Studio Achievements

Something went wrong getting the Visual Studio Achievements

C9 Lectures: Dr. Erik Meijer - Functional Programming Fundamentals Chapter 8 of 13

Download

Right click “Save as…”

In Chapter 8, Functional Parsers, it's all about parsing and parsers. A parser is a program that analyses a piece of text to determine its syntactic structure. In a functional language such as Haskell, parsers can naturally
be viewed as functions.

  type Parser = String -> Tree

A parser is a function that takes a string and returns some form of tree.

You should watch these in sequence (or skip around depending on your curent level of knowledge in this domain):

Get the presentation slides here

Chapter 1
Chapter 2
Chapter 3
Chapter 4
Chapter 5

Chapter 6
Chapter 7
Chapter 8
Chapter 9
Chapter 10
Chapter 11
Chapter 12
Chapter 13

 

Tags:

Follow the Discussion

  • Very nice shirt Smiley

  • Hope you get the time to do an introduction on QuickCheck. This is one of the things in Haskell that seems the most interesting to me, and I think it is a pretty unique to functional programming languages, if I understand it correctly.

  • Excelent lecture as always. Keep up the good work. Smiley

     

    In the book Hutton didn't explain why he chose List instead of the Maybe type. I'm glad you touch that subject in the lecture.

  • Bent Rasmussenexoteric stuck in a loop, for a while

    Erik, could you make the generalization offered by lists over optional types more statically correct with dependent typing? Saying that Maybe is just a list of zero or one element?

     

    In the ideal world we want to have lists as a generalization of Maybe but we don't want to loose the type safety that Maybe offers.

     

    This problem is complete Deja Vu for me: I encountered the same tension between the option type and the list type in an attempt to implement a lazy functional L-system library in haXe back in 2007.

     

    Thanks for the "epic fail" parser, haha.

     

    Deja Vu again! Brian Beckman repeated this so many times it was burned into my memory: the state monad is a function from state to state contents pair. This looks exactly as what we see here: you start with a string and get back a string and a tree.

     

    Erik, why do you not like the layout rule in this case and use explicit delineation. I don't think you mention this.

     

    This whole parsing business is reminiscent of unfolding. Expansion of some input into a more complex form. Composition, application and unfolding, hmm...

  • While parser combinators can be expressed functionally on .NET, even in C#, after having written a few such combinator libraries I've found that Pratt parsers strike a better balance between simplicity and performance on the CLR. Pratt parsers also naturally handle operator precedence, while parser combinator libraries require more complicated structures to express these relationships. The extensible parser in the above link will be available in an upcoming release of my open source Sasa class library, so check it out if you're interested in this domain.

  • Bent Rasmussenexoteric stuck in a loop, for a while

    I've seen your blog before naasking and will check this out, thanks!

  • Excellent as always, Erik.

     

    Perhaps like exoteric, I felt a little dissatisfied with the return type of Parser being "list of..." rather than "Maybe...". I've come to admire the expressive power of Haskell types and this seems like a bit of a hack. Considering, as you pointed out, that both the list and Maybe types comprise Monads, I am wondering where the advantage exists for using the list type. Monads allow for map, filter, lift operations, no?

  • The list type is generally used for parser combinators to return multiple possible parses.

     

    I don't own Hutton's book, but I can think of a few reasons for not using Maybe. It would require introducing a new datatype to the reader, while the reader is already familiar with the list type. Also, it takes more characters to write when pattern matching on a Maybe value Tongue Out.

     

    Now, in a real project you'd use the appropiate data type. If you know that at most only a single answer will be produced, use Maybe.

  • Bent Rasmussenexoteric stuck in a loop, for a while

    In general, this tension between structural abstraction and type-safety is conceptually dissatisfying.

     

    There must be a way to use the same list abstraction, only constrained to apply to [n,m] elements. Such value-restrictions upheld by a type system appear to be what dependent typing does. This provides a new expressive dimension which is missing in order to type programs correctly without also loosing the abstraction provided by lists over options. The ideal must be a way to fluently move from intensional to extensional semantics by explicitly coercing a type into the extensional domain of structural compatibility.

     

    It also reminds me of template metaprogramming. Someone built a compile-time regexp module in D and there's also a compile-time raytracer in D. In the last case you may discuss the applicability of that but at least it shows the expressive power.

     

    http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/templates-revisited.html

     

    Now time to play with parsers in C# using LINQ...

  • I'm mystified by Erik's comment that the inserting calls to parse "makes the type conversion explicit".

     

    I can certainly see that:

    parse p "something"

    is preferable to

    p "something"

     

    However, to me it seems that it makes semantics exlicit rather than type conversion.

     

    Erik hardly seems more likely to be confused here than I am, so I think I'm missing some fundamental alternative way of viewing this.

     

    As I'm writing this I think I'm starting to get it. Using parse makes it explicit that p is a parser. Since applying a parser to a value always returns a value with a type that has the same relationship to the input value's type, using parse makes both the semantics and the type conversions explicit.

     

    Am I understanding this correctly?

    If not, I'd appreciate it if someone could expand upon Erik's statements.

  • The balance between too little and too much typing is subtle.  You can goo all the way and have your types be a very precise specification of your code http://www.cs.chalmers.se/~bengt/talks/tt-snu.pdf or have no static types at all. I think Hindley-Milner is a good compromise, although I think something like Cayenne http://www.cs.chalmers.se/~augustss/cayenne/ should work in practice as well.

  • Leo Melloleomm Leo

    Hello, I've tried the following code with Hugs:

     

    type Parser a = String -> [(a,String)]

     

    item :: Parser Char
    item = \inp -> case inp of
                   []     -> []
                   (x:xs) -> [(x,xs)]
                  
    return' :: a -> Parser a
    return' v = \inp -> [(v,inp)]

     

    p' :: Parser (Char,Char)
    p' = do x <- item
                z <- item
                y <- item
                return' (x,y)

     

    It gives the following error:

     

    Prelude>

    p' "12345"

    ERROR file:{Hugs}\packages\hugsbase\Hugs.hs:94 - Type error in explicitly typed binding

    *** Term : p'

    *** Type : [Char] -> [(([(Char,[Char])],[(Char,[Char])]),[Char])]

    *** Does not match : Parser (Char,Char)

     

    Does anyone had this problem? Thanks in advance for any help.

  • I must be going blind, but I can't seem to find the slides anywhere.  Also, did anyone manage to collect all the links Erik pointed-to/talked-about at the beginning of the presentation?

  • Leo Melloleomm Leo

    I also couldn't find the slides.

     

    One of the links is this: http://www.comlab.ox.ac.uk/people/Richard.Bird/index.html

     

    Another one is this: http://portal.acm.org/portal.cfm?coll=GUIDE&dl=GUIDE&CFID=63594272&CFTOKEN=61762843

     

    Regards

  • CharlesCharles Welcome Change

    Slides for the series: http://www.cs.nott.ac.uk/~gmh/book.html#slides

    C

  • Leo Melloleomm Leo

    Thank you Charles. The source code, available at the same link, is great. Now I understand why my code wasn´t running.

     

    Regards

  • homework:

     

    2) Extend the parser for arithmetic expressions to support substraction and
       division, based upon the following extensions to the grammar:
            
            expr ::= term (+ expr | - expr | e)
            term ::= factor (* term | / term | e)

    expr' :: Parser Int expr' = do t <- term' do symbol "+" e <- expr' return (t + e) +++ do symbol "-" e <- expr' return (t - e) +++ return t term' :: Parser Int term' = do f <- factor' do symbol "*" t <- term' return (f * t) +++ do symbol
     "/" e <- expr' return (f `div` e) +++ return f factor' :: Parser Int factor' = do symbol "(" e <- expr' symbol ")" return e +++ natural eval' :: String -> Int eval' xs = case parse expr' xs of [(n,[])] -> n [(_,out)] -> error ("unused input " ++ out) [] ->
     error "invalid input" 

  • I'm getting the same error from my code. How did you fix your code?

  • sirycsiryc siryc

    I cannot find a Gilat Braga's blog (I am not sure if I write it correct)... Can anyone help me?

  • CharlesCharles Welcome Change

    Hi,

     

    His name is Gilad Bracha. His blog is http://gbracha.blogspot.com/ 

     

    You can also watch him on C9: http://channel9.msdn.com/tags/Gilad+Bracha

     

    C

  • SachinSachin

    The second Paper is "The Genuine sieve of Eratosthenes" by Melissa O'Neill
    http://www.cs.hmc.edu/~oneill/papers/Sieve-JFP.pdf

  • DavidDavid

    I do not agree with most as far as this one presentation goes... I really appreciated all the other ones but here...
    I lost you or you lost me or you lost it... whichever.

Remove this comment

Remove this thread

close

Comments Closed

Comments have been closed since this content was published more than 30 days ago, but if you'd like to continue the conversation, please create a new thread in our Forums,
or Contact Us and let us know.