It seems to me that there aren’t many step-by-step introductions to parsec, where you build up a parser as you go. This is especially the case for applicative parsec, which is a shame as applicative functors are nice. So, I wrote one. Today, we are going to learn how to use applicatives and parsec to parse a CSV file. We’ll start off with a very basic one where there can be no commas or escape characters in the fields, then add support for quoted fields which can contain any character, and then we’ll add support for special escape characters (numeric literals and the like). Finally, I’ll leave two small exercises that you might want to work on, just to check that you managed to get everything.
The Basic Parser
> import Text.Parsec > import Control.Applicative ((<$), (<*), (*>), liftA) > import Data.Char (chr) > > parseCSV :: String -> Either ParseError [[String]] > parseCSV = ...
Great things have small beginnings. Parsec is based upon parser combinators: there are a few basic parsers which do things like match a character, and then everything else is built by combining them. A combinator (or supercombinator) is a function which is composed entirely out of bound variables and other (super)combinators. Combinators are nice, as they compose easily, and so building up very complex operations out of combinators is often very easy. Furthermore, it is not unusual for a function built out of combinators to not refer to any variables at all, and so combinators naturally express the notion of data flow programming, where you say how you want the data to be manipulated, but don’t really talk about the actual data.
In order to be able to work like this, parsec has two interfaces: monadic, and applicative. The monadic way is the traditional way to do it, but it leads to a very imperative style of writing parsers, which doesn’t look very nice, or even look very much like you’re using combinators at all. The applicative way is the newer way and, whilst not as powerful as the monadic way, allows you to parse any context free grammar. In fact, as Haskell is lazy, you can actually parse any context sensitive grammar with a finite alphabet, but that’s a bit of a hack: in general, applicative functors are not powerful enough to parse context sensitive grammars.
Look at the type signature of our
parseCSV, it returns an
Either ParseError [[String]]. Parsec uses
ParseError when things go wrong, and tells you what it actually found and what it expected to find, although there are functions which allow you to manually set an error message, rather than use the default one. The success type is a list of lists of strings: I decided to represent a parsed CSV file as a list of rows, where each row is a list of string fields. Now, let’s see what we can do:
> parseCSV = parse csvp ""
See, no variables! What’s this doing? Well, the
parse function runs a parser (
csvp) with a given source name (
"", can be used in error messages), on a given input. So, I hear you cry, if
csvp is the parser, that’s where all the hairiness is, right? Actually, no,
> csvp :: Parsec String () [[String]] > csvp = line `endBy` newline <* eof
Still pretty simple, but we have some more notation to explain. The type
Parsec String () [[String]] means that this is a parser which takes an input of type
String, some state of type
() (so no state, in our case), and produces an output of type
line is another parser I’ve defined, which handles each line of our input.
endBy p s is a built-in combinator, which repeatedly runs the parser
p, collecting its results in a list, where each
p is followed by a separator
s, in this case the separator is
newline, which is a built-in parser to match—you guessed it—newlines.
eof is another built in parser, I’m sure you can guess what it does.
Let’s spend a little time talking about
(<*) and its brothers. Here, we get our first taste of applicative functors! The type of
Applicative f => f a -> f b -> f a, and
p <* q can be read as “do
p, then do
q, and only return the result of
p”. Thus, it is a combinator for gathering side-effects: in this case, parsing some of the string. As you might expect, there is a
(*>), which throws away the result of the left parser. The other combinator I’m going to make use of is
(<$) :: Applicative f => a -> f b -> f a, where
x <$ p can be read as “do
p, and then return the value
Ok, let’s continue.
parseCSV is nice,
csvp is nice, surely
line must be horrible!
> line :: Parsec String () [String] > line = cell `sepBy1` char ','
Oh. Well, we see another custom parser here,
cell, which parses the contents of an individual cell. We also get a new combinator,
sepBy1, and a new basic parser,
sepBy1 p s parses
ps separated by
ss, much like
endBy, except the final
p doesn’t need a
s after it, also, the
1 in the name means that there must be at least one
p. Or, in terms of CSV files, each row has at least one field. As you can probably guess, the parser
char c succeeds if it can parse the char,
Are we nearly at the end of this surprisingly easy to navigate rabbit warren of parsers? Yup, just one more to go. Truly, this must be where the horror lurks!
> cell :: Parsec String () String > cell = many $ noneOf ",\n"
And that’s it, a parser for CSV files.
many p runs the parser
p as many times as it can, collecting the results,
noneOf cs is a parser which matches any char not in
Well, this is all well and good, but the astute reader will have noticed this doesn’t let us have a comma inside a field, and may also have noticed that I haven’t used all of the things I imported way back at the beginning. We need to go deeper.
It’s fairly common to allow special characters like commas in the fields of a CSV file by quoting the entire field. Thus, your data may look like this:
foo,bar,"baz, bat". How can we do this? Well, let’s break it down into cases.
- A cell is not quoted, in which case it cannot contain commas or newlines.
- A cell is quoted, in which case it can contain commas and newlines.
But now we surely have another problem, how do we embed a literal quote into our quoted fields? Let’s adopt the convention
"" represents a single quote, if it appears inside a quoted field. For example,
"bar said ""hello, world"" to foo." This seems to work.
As I broke the problem into two cases, you may have guessed where this is going. The choice combinator!
p <|> q executes
p and, if
p fails without consuming any input, executes
q. This is sometimes a bit restrictive, and so the parser
try p executes
p, and if
p fails it acts like it hasn’t consumed any input. Let’s build up our parser.
> cell :: Parsec String () String > cell = cell' <|> many (noneOf ",\n")
Same as before, except we have some
cell' parser, which parses a quoted cell. The distinguishing feature of a quoted cell is that it’s between two quotes. Fortunately, parsec has a
between l r p combinator, which parses a
p between an
l and an
> where cell' = between (char '"') (char '"') $ many (noneOf "\"")
Nearly there, we just need to add the
" code now. Another choice.
> where cell' = between (char '"') (char '"') $ many chr > chr = noneOf "\"" <|> try ('"' <$ string "\"\"")
And now the previously mentioned
(<$) combinator comes in to play. I don’t really like it, as it does things in the opposite order to how they are specified, so I’ll be changing it for something else later. But here, it is ok.
We can now parse CSV filed to our hearts content, and there are no obvious problems with our parser. However, we could make it shinier. Let’s add support for special characters (eg, “”) and numeric literals (eg, “56”).
Specials and Literals
You may be tempted to write something like
literal <|> specialchar <|> noneOf "\"", using your new-found knowledge of
(<|>) to choose between all of the possibilities, and that would not work. Both our literals and our special characters start with a backslash, and so if
literal consumes a backslash, and then fails to progress (as it’s a special character, not a literal), the whole chain will fail, as
(<|>) only tries the next parser if no input was consumed. We can either work around this by rearranging our grammar, or by using
try. I went for that, as it’s easier:
> cell :: Parsec String () String > cell = cell' <|> many (chr ",\n\\") > where cell' = between (char '"') (char '"') $ many (chr "\\\"") > chr bad = try literal <|> specialchar <|> noneOf bad
Now, don’t rush off and implement
specialchar yet! Let’s think about types. Haskell is all about types, and getting your types right is a big help in checking your program is right. Clearly, they both need to consume a
String and produce a
Char. Why? Well,
noneOf does, and the types have to match. Alternatively, a special character (or literal) is a multi-character sequence, like “”, it’s a minimum of two characters long. Clearly we can’t consume less than that and still match it. Furthermore, both literals and specials express a single character, so that is clearly what should be returned.
Let’s also think about how we can go about parsing them, before we head off and do it. An approach that could work would be to match a backslash, then dispatch on the next character to decide what to do. Special characters are of the form “” for some x, and literals are of the form “…”, for some x. Furthermore, the type of digits after a literal depend on the base. Let’s simplify things and only consider hexadecimal and octal (as parsec has parsers for those). So, for specials we want to map a char to a char, and for literals we want to map a char to a parser. How about these?
> specialCharacters :: [(Char, Char)] > specialCharacters = [('0', '\0'), ('a', '\a'), ('b', '\b'), ('f', '\f'), > ('n', '\n'), ('r', '\r'), ('t', '\t'), ('v', '\v'), > ('"', '"'), ('\'', '\''), ('\\', '\\')] > > literalNumbers :: [(Char, Parsec String () Char)] > literalNumbers = [('x', hexDigit), ('o', octDigit)]
I’ve left out decimals, as there isn’t really a traditional prefix for those, so it just complicates matters at this stage (guess what one of the exercises will be). Before progressing, have a think about how to implement
specialchar. It’s a parser which matches a string and returns the appropriate character, or fails if none match. We can explicitly fail by returning
parserZero, the parser which fails without consuming any of its input.
Well, here’s my solution:
> specialchar :: Parsec String () Char > specialchar = char '\\' *> special' specialCharacters > where special' ((esc, c):cs) = char esc *> parserReturn c <|> special' cs > special'  = parserZero
I could have written it as a
foldr, but decided to make it explicit, so it’s simple. I also used
p *> parserReturn c ≡ c <$ p. I think it’s just easier to read, as the flow of data isn’t backwards.
specialchar, you should be able to implement
literal, as it’s almost the same. The only difference is that instead of returning straight away, we parse some more and do something with the result (specifically, convert it from a string of digits into a char). Here you go,
> literal :: Parsec String () Char > literal = char '\\' *> literal' literalNumbers > where literal' ((c, f):cs) = char c *> tochar c (many1 f) <|> literal' cs > literal'  = parserZero > tochar c = liftA $ \s -> chr . read $ '0' : c : s
And that is it, our parser is complete. I hope I explained everything clearly enough, and you now feel comfortable with the basics of applicative parsec. The parsec haddock is really the best place to look for documentation; it’s guaranteed to be always up to date and complete.
If you want to practice your understanding, there are two main problems I have with this parser: escape sequences are only one character long, and there are no decimal literals. It is your task, should you choose to accept it, to implement these features! More precisely,
- Allow special characters like “”, “”, and “”. See Real World Haskell for a decent list. In my solution I have only implemented table B.2 (the ASCII escapes), but feel free to do more if you want. Although, once you’ve got the approach figured out, adding arbitrary escape sequences is fairly simple.
- Allow decimal literals in the form “…”, a sequence of decimal digits immediately after a backslash character with no prefix character. There are a few ways this could be done, and the one I chose is perhaps a bit over the top, but it works.
Solutions (and complete code from this post) linked from the further reading section.
- Parsec Documentation
- Real World Haskell (particularly chapter 16)
- Write Yourself a Scheme in 45 Hours (particularly the section on parsing)
All code from this post, and solutions to the exercises, is available on GitHub