Comment by ArneCode

13 hours ago

I really like the animations, makes it intuitive to understand what is happening!

One disadvantage that I think parser combinators have, for example compared to parser generator libraries (where the parser is generated from a seperate grammar file), is that you have to add a lot of mapping / unwrapping code. In my opinion this makes the parsers harder to read.

As an attempt to improve this, I have been working on a parser combinator library in rust. It adds two extra combinators (capture and bind) which can store the results of parsers in buckets (bind) and use the values stored in these buckets later to construct results (capture). This allows you to eliminate the unwrapping / mapping code and seperate the grammar from the result contstruction.

If you have the time, I would really appreciate feedback on this!

You can find it here: https://github.com/ArneCode/marser

14 comments

ArneCode

pxc 8 hours ago

My first contact with parser combinators was in a parser generator library: https://github.com/engelberg/instaparse

This is (probably weirdly, since I've just learned that the approach in the OP is the original one that introduced parser combinators) the first time I've seen parser combinators where the parsers are just functions like this. If you want to be able to combine parsers and you don't want to write a bunch of mapping/unwrapping code, why not just use combinators over parsers assembled by a parser generator?

pdpi 12 hours ago

I'm struggling to see the point in this. Your roll example using Winnow. Not really that much (un)wrapping logic:

    use winnow::{Result, ascii::digit1, combinator::separated_pair, prelude::*};

    #[derive(Debug, PartialEq)]
    struct Roll {
        count: u32,
        sides: u32,
    }

    fn number(input: &mut &str) -> Result<u32> {
        digit1.try_map(str::parse).parse_next(input)
    }

    fn roll(input: &mut &str) -> Result<Roll> {
        let (count, sides) = separated_pair(number, 'd', number).parse_next(input)?;
        Ok(Roll { count, sides })
    }

    #[cfg(test)]
    mod test {
        use super::*;

        #[test]
        fn test_roll() {
            let input = &mut "3d6";
            assert_eq!(roll(input), Ok(Roll { count: 3, sides: 6 }));
        }
    }

ArneCode 12 hours ago

In this case yes, but I would argue this is because the roll grammar is a relatively simple grammar, you have no nesting of different combinators etc. (I have used it in the README because it is simple to understand). The winnow code also using seperated_pair to ignore the "d" value, which is also adding some logic to retain only the count and sides result.
One grammar I have been using to make a comparison is a function signature. I tried comparing with nom and chumsky: https://blog.arnedebo.com/posts/a-grammar-first-approach-to-...
These libraries have found ways to replace "unwrapping" code with combinators like separated_by or .ignore_then etc. but this still leaves a lot of code for result handling, in my opinon making the code harder to read and reason about, which is what I attempt to improve.
These are of course very subjective things, so another person might prefer the ways the other libraries do this.

mrkeen 12 hours ago

What kind of mapping/unwrapping are you being subjected to with PCs?

ArneCode 12 hours ago
When combining two parsers, for example in a sequence like pSeq in this website, you need to think about what to do with their return values. One approach is to put all return values in a tuple. So lets say we are combining parsers p1,p2,..., p_n in a sequence, then the return value of the parser created by pSeq(p1,p2,...,p_n) is (R(p1), R(p2), ..., R(p_n)) if R(p) is the return value of parser p.
When writing parsers you will often use multiple nested combinators. This means you have nested tuples. Getting the values out of these means "unwrapping" these tuples. Additionally you might not need all of the values in the sequence, some of them might only be for parsing whitespace. So when using the results of the parsers to construct values you have to ignore them. This can for example be done by "mapping" the resulting tuples and only leaving relevant fields. There are other approaches as well, for example chaining parsers with p1.then_ignore(p2) which only returns R(p1).
Maybe I could have chosen the words here a bit better, I hope this makes it more clear what I mean.
I have also tried making a side-by-side comparison of parsers for grammars being written using my library and others, maybe this can act as an example: https://blog.arnedebo.com/posts/a-grammar-first-approach-to-...
- Jaxan 11 hours ago
  
  I’ve always used parser combinaties in Haskell and I’ve never seen the things you describe. I guess in Haskell one always directly apply the parts to the function you want (ie an AST node constructor).
  
  6 replies →
- kccqzy 11 hours ago
  
  Does your language have native tuple destructuring syntax?
  The ignore example is just p1 <* p2 in Haskell (that operator is in the standard library).
- mrkeen 12 hours ago
  
  [dead]