It is true that Parsec has chainl and chainr to parse chains of either left-associative or right-associative operations (i.e. a -> a -> a). So I could quite easily parse something like x + y + z in a ((a + y) + z) or (a + (y + z)) manner.
However,
a -> b -> c functions and specific case when a = b: a -> a -> c, for example a = b = c thought as a comparison function (a -> a -> Bool);a + b = b + a should be parsed as ((a + b) = (b + a)) and not (((a + b) = b) + a)).I am kind of new to parsing problems, so it would be great to get answers for both questions.
Okay, here's a long answer that might help. First, these are the imports I'm using, if you want to follow along:
{-# LANGUAGE FlexibleContexts #-}
{-# OPTIONS_GHC -Wall #-}
import Control.Applicative (some)
import Text.Parsec
import Text.Parsec.Expr
import Text.Parsec.String
a -> a -> a isn't so bad...The operator type signature a -> a -> a is less restrictive and makes more sense than you might at first think. One key point is that usually when we're parsing expressions, we don't write a parser to evaluate them directly but rather parse them into some intermediate abstract syntax tree (AST) that is later evaluated. For example, consider a simple untyped AST with addition, subtraction, equality, and boolean connectives:
data Expr
= IntE Int -- integer literals
| FalseE | TrueE -- boolean literals (F, T)
| AddE Expr Expr -- x + y
| SubE Expr Expr -- x - y
| EqE Expr Expr -- x = y
| OrE Expr Expr -- x | y
| AndE Expr Expr -- x & y
deriving (Show)
If we want to write a parser to treat all these operators as left associative at the same precedence level, we can write a chainl-based parser like so. (For simplicity, this parser doesn't permit whitespace.)
expr :: Parser Expr
expr = chainl1 term op
where op = AddE <$ char '+'
<|> SubE <$ char '-'
<|> EqE <$ char '='
<|> OrE <$ char '|'
<|> AndE <$ char '&'
term :: Parser Expr
term = IntE . read <$> some digit
<|> FalseE <$ char 'F' <|> TrueE <$ char 'T'
<|> parens expr
parens :: Parser a -> Parser a
parens = between (char '(') (char ')')
and we get:
> parseTest expr "1+2+3"
AddE (AddE (IntE 1) (IntE 2)) (IntE 3)
> parseTest expr "1=2=F"
EqE (EqE (IntE 1) (IntE 2)) FalseE
>
We'd then leave it up to the interpreter to deal with the types (i.e., to type check the program):
data Value = BoolV Bool | IntV Int deriving (Eq, Show)
eval :: Expr -> Value
eval (IntE x) = IntV x
eval FalseE = BoolV False
eval TrueE = BoolV True
eval (AddE e1 e2)
= let IntV v1 = eval e1 -- pattern match ensures right type
IntV v2 = eval e2
in IntV (v1 + v2)
eval (SubE e1 e2)
= let IntV v1 = eval e1
IntV v2 = eval e2
in IntV (v1 - v2)
eval (EqE e1 e2) = BoolV (eval e1 == eval e2) -- equal if same type and value
eval (OrE e1 e2)
= let BoolV v1 = eval e1
BoolV v2 = eval e2
in BoolV (v1 || v2)
eval (AndE e1 e2)
= let BoolV v1 = eval e1
BoolV v2 = eval e2
in BoolV (v1 && v2)
evalExpr :: String -> Value
evalExpr str = let Right e = parse expr "<evalExpr>" str in eval e
giving:
> evalExpr "1+2+3"
IntV 6
> evalExpr "1=2=F"
BoolV True
>
Note that even though the type of the "=" operator is something like Eq a => a -> a -> Bool (or actually a -> b -> Bool, as we allow comparison of unequal types), it's represented in the AST as the constructor EqE of type Expr -> Expr -> Expr, so the a -> a -> a type makes sense.
Even if we were to combine the parser and evaluator above into a single function, we'd probably find it easiest to use a dynamic Value type, so all operators would be of type Value -> Value -> Value which fits into the a -> a -> a pattern:
expr' :: Parser Value
expr' = chainl1 term' op
where op = add <$ char '+'
<|> sub <$ char '-'
<|> eq <$ char '='
<|> or <$ char '|'
<|> and <$ char '&'
add (IntV x) (IntV y) = IntV $ x + y
sub (IntV x) (IntV y) = IntV $ x - y
eq v1 v2 = BoolV $ v1 == v2
or (BoolV x) (BoolV y) = BoolV $ x || y
and (BoolV x) (BoolV y) = BoolV $ x && y
term' :: Parser Value
term' = IntV . read <$> some digit
<|> BoolV False <$ char 'F' <|> BoolV True <$ char 'T'
<|> parens expr'
This works too, with the parser directly evaluating the expression
> parseTest expr' "1+2+3"
IntV 6
> parseTest expr' "1=2=F"
BoolV True
>
You may find this use of dynamic typing during parsing and evaluation a little unsatifactory, but see below.
The standard way of adding operator precedence is to define multiple expression "levels" that work with a subset of the operators. If we want a precedence ordering from highest to lowest of addition/subtraction, then equality, then boolean "and", then boolean "or", we could replace expr' with the following. Note that each chainl1 call uses as "terms" the next (higher-precedence) expression level:
expr0 :: Parser Value
expr0 = chainl1 expr1 op
where op = or <$ char '|'
or (BoolV x) (BoolV y) = BoolV $ x || y
expr1 :: Parser Value
expr1 = chainl1 expr2 op
where op = and <$ char '&'
and (BoolV x) (BoolV y) = BoolV $ x && y
expr2 :: Parser Value
expr2 = chainl1 expr3 op
where op = eq <$ char '='
eq v1 v2 = BoolV $ v1 == v2
expr3 :: Parser Value
expr3 = chainl1 term'' op
where op = add <$ char '+' -- two operators at same precedence
<|> sub <$ char '-'
add (IntV x) (IntV y) = IntV $ x + y
sub (IntV x) (IntV y) = IntV $ x - y
term'' :: Parser Value
term'' = IntV . read <$> some digit
<|> BoolV False <$ char 'F' <|> BoolV True <$ char 'T'
<|> parens expr0
After which:
> parseTest expr0 "(1+5-6=2-3+1&2+2=4)=(T|F)"
BoolV True
>
As this can be tedious, Parsec provides a Text.Parsec.Expr that makes this easier. The following replaces expr0 through expr3 above:
expr0' :: Parser Value
expr0' = buildExpressionParser table term''
where table = [ [binary '+' add, binary '-' sub]
, [binary '=' eq]
, [binary '&' and]
, [binary '|' or]
]
binary c op = Infix (op <$ char c) AssocLeft
add (IntV x) (IntV y) = IntV $ x + y
sub (IntV x) (IntV y) = IntV $ x - y
eq v1 v2 = BoolV $ v1 == v2
and (BoolV x) (BoolV y) = BoolV $ x && y
or (BoolV x) (BoolV y) = BoolV $ x || y
You may find it strange above that we use an untyped AST (i.e., everything's an Expr) and dynamically typed Value instead of using Haskell's type system in the parsing. It is possible to design a parser where the operators actually have expected Haskell types. In the language above, equality causes a bit of an issue, but if we permit integer equality only, it's possible to write a typed parser/evaluator as follows. Here bexpr and iexpr are for boolean-valued and integer-values expressions respectively.
bexpr0 :: Parser Bool
bexpr0 = chainl1 bexpr1 op
where op = (||) <$ char '|'
bexpr1 :: Parser Bool
bexpr1 = chainl1 bexpr2 op
where op = (&&) <$ char '&'
bexpr2 :: Parser Bool
bexpr2 = False <$ char 'F' <|> True <$ char 'T'
<|> try eqexpr
<|> parens bexpr0
where eqexpr = (==) <$> iexpr3 <* char '=' <*> iexpr3 -- this can't chain now
iexpr3 :: Parser Int
iexpr3 = chainl1 iterm op
where op = (+) <$ char '+'
<|> (-) <$ char '-'
iterm :: Parser Int
iterm = read <$> some digit
<|> parens iexpr3
Note that we're still able to use chainl1, but there's a boundary between the integer and boolean types enforced by precedence, so we only ever chain Int -> Int -> Int or Bool -> Bool -> Bool operators, and we don't let the Int -> Int -> Bool integer equality operator chain.
This also means we need to use a different parser to parse a boolean versus an integer expression:
> parseTest bexpr0 "1+2=3"
True
> parseTest iexpr3 "1+2-3" -- iexpr3 is top-most integer expression parser
0
>
Note here that if you wanted integer equality to chain as a set of equalities so that 1+1=2=3-1 would check that all three terms are equal, you could do this with chainl1 using some trickery with lists and singleton values, but it's easier to use sepBy1 and replace eqexpr above with the definition:
eqexpr' = do
x:xs <- sepBy1 iexpr3 (char '=')
return $ all (==x) xs
giving:
> parseTest bexpr0 "1+1=2=3-1"
True
To summarize, here's all the code:
{-# LANGUAGE FlexibleContexts #-}
{-# OPTIONS_GHC -Wall #-}
import Control.Applicative (some)
import Text.Parsec
import Text.Parsec.Expr
import Text.Parsec.String
-- * Untyped parser to AST
data Expr
= IntE Int -- integer literals
| FalseE | TrueE -- boolean literals (F, T)
| AddE Expr Expr -- x + y
| SubE Expr Expr -- x - y
| EqE Expr Expr -- x = y
| OrE Expr Expr -- x | y
| AndE Expr Expr -- x & y
deriving (Show)
expr :: Parser Expr
expr = chainl1 term op
where op = AddE <$ char '+'
<|> SubE <$ char '-'
<|> EqE <$ char '='
<|> OrE <$ char '|'
<|> AndE <$ char '&'
term :: Parser Expr
term = IntE . read <$> some digit
<|> FalseE <$ char 'F' <|> TrueE <$ char 'T'
<|> parens expr
parens :: Parser a -> Parser a
parens = between (char '(') (char ')')
-- * Interpreter
data Value = BoolV Bool | IntV Int deriving (Eq, Show)
eval :: Expr -> Value
eval (IntE x) = IntV x
eval FalseE = BoolV False
eval TrueE = BoolV True
eval (AddE e1 e2)
= let IntV v1 = eval e1 -- pattern match ensures right type
IntV v2 = eval e2
in IntV (v1 + v2)
eval (SubE e1 e2)
= let IntV v1 = eval e1
IntV v2 = eval e2
in IntV (v1 - v2)
eval (EqE e1 e2) = BoolV (eval e1 == eval e2) -- equal if same type and value
eval (OrE e1 e2)
= let BoolV v1 = eval e1
BoolV v2 = eval e2
in BoolV (v1 || v2)
eval (AndE e1 e2)
= let BoolV v1 = eval e1
BoolV v2 = eval e2
in BoolV (v1 && v2)
-- * Combined parser/interpreter with no intermediate AST
expr' :: Parser Value
expr' = chainl1 term' op
where op = add <$ char '+'
<|> sub <$ char '-'
<|> eq <$ char '='
<|> or <$ char '|'
<|> and <$ char '&'
add (IntV x) (IntV y) = IntV $ x + y
sub (IntV x) (IntV y) = IntV $ x - y
eq v1 v2 = BoolV $ v1 == v2
or (BoolV x) (BoolV y) = BoolV $ x || y
and (BoolV x) (BoolV y) = BoolV $ x && y
term' :: Parser Value
term' = IntV . read <$> some digit
<|> BoolV False <$ char 'F' <|> BoolV True <$ char 'T'
<|> parens expr'
-- * Parser/interpreter with operator precendence
expr0 :: Parser Value
expr0 = chainl1 expr1 op
where op = or <$ char '|'
or (BoolV x) (BoolV y) = BoolV $ x || y
expr1 :: Parser Value
expr1 = chainl1 expr2 op
where op = and <$ char '&'
and (BoolV x) (BoolV y) = BoolV $ x && y
expr2 :: Parser Value
expr2 = chainl1 expr3 op
where op = eq <$ char '='
eq v1 v2 = BoolV $ v1 == v2
expr3 :: Parser Value
expr3 = chainl1 term'' op
where op = add <$ char '+' -- two operators at same precedence
<|> sub <$ char '-'
add (IntV x) (IntV y) = IntV $ x + y
sub (IntV x) (IntV y) = IntV $ x - y
term'' :: Parser Value
term'' = IntV . read <$> some digit
<|> BoolV False <$ char 'F' <|> BoolV True <$ char 'T'
<|> parens expr0
-- * Alternate implementation using buildExpressionParser
expr0' :: Parser Value
expr0' = buildExpressionParser table term''
where table = [ [binary '+' add, binary '-' sub]
, [binary '=' eq]
, [binary '&' and]
, [binary '|' or]
]
binary c op = Infix (op <$ char c) AssocLeft
add (IntV x) (IntV y) = IntV $ x + y
sub (IntV x) (IntV y) = IntV $ x - y
eq v1 v2 = BoolV $ v1 == v2
and (BoolV x) (BoolV y) = BoolV $ x && y
or (BoolV x) (BoolV y) = BoolV $ x || y
-- * Typed parser/interpreter with separate boolean and integer expressions
bexpr0 :: Parser Bool
bexpr0 = chainl1 bexpr1 op
where op = (||) <$ char '|'
bexpr1 :: Parser Bool
bexpr1 = chainl1 bexpr2 op
where op = (&&) <$ char '&'
bexpr2 :: Parser Bool
bexpr2 = False <$ char 'F' <|> True <$ char 'T'
<|> try eqexpr
<|> parens bexpr0
where eqexpr = (==) <$> iexpr3 <* char '=' <*> iexpr3 -- this can't chain now
iexpr3 :: Parser Int
iexpr3 = chainl1 iterm op
where op = (+) <$ char '+'
<|> (-) <$ char '-'
iterm :: Parser Int
iterm = read <$> some digit
<|> parens iexpr3
-- * Alternate definition of eqexpr to allow 4=2+2=1+3
eqexpr' = do
x:xs <- sepBy1 iexpr3 (char '=')
return $ all (==x) xs