On 13.02.2013 21:41, Brandon Allbery wrote:
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Nicolas Bock <nicolasb...@gmail.com
<mailto:nicolasb...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Since I have very little experience with Haskell and am not used to
Haskell-think yet, I don't quite understand your statement that
regexes are seen as foreign to Haskell-think. Could you elaborate?
What would a more "native" solution look like? From what I have
learned so far, it seems to me that Haskell is a lot about clear,
The native solution is a parser like parsec/attoparsec. The problem
with regexes is that you can't at compile time verify that, for example,
you have as many matching groups in the regex as the code using it
expects, nor does an optional matching group behave as a Maybe like it
should; nor are there nice ways to recover. A parser gives you full
control and better compile time checking, and is generally recommended.
Regexps only have this problem if they are compiled from string. Nothing
prevents from building them using combinators. regex-applicaitve[1] uses
this approach and quite nice to use.
[1] http://hackage.haskell.org/package/regex-applicative
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
