选择一个Haskell解析器 [英] Choosing a Haskell parser

问题描述

有许多开源解析器实现可用给我们Haskell。 Parsec 似乎是文本解析的标准， attoparsec 似乎是二进制解析的流行选择，但除此之外我不太了解。您选择解析器实现时是否遵循特定的决策树？你有没有对图书馆的长处或弱点有所了解？

$有几种不错的选择。 b
$ b

对于字符串类型的轻量级解析：

• parsec =noreferrer> polyparse

对于打包的字符串解析，例如 HTTP头。

• attoparsec

对于实际的二进制数据，大多数人使用以下两种方法之一：

• 二进制 - 用于懒惰二进制解析


• 麦片 - 用于严格的二进制解析

问自己的主要问题是底层字符串类型是什么？

• 字符串？


• bytestring （strict）？


• bytestring （lazy）？


• unicode text

该决定主要决定您将使用哪个解析器工具集。

问的第二个问题是：我是否已经有了数据类型的语法？如果是这样，我可以使用快乐

• 快乐分析器生成器

显然，对于自定义数据类型， ：

• XML
  
  
  
  
  • haxml
  
  
  • xml-light
  hxt
  
  • hexpat
  >
  


• CSV
  
  
  
  
  • bytestring-csv
  
  
  • 
    
  b $ b
  • json
  
  


• rss / atom
  
  
  
  
  • 供稿
  
  

There are many open sourced parser implementations available to us in Haskell. Parsec seems to be the standard for text parsing and attoparsec seems to be a popular choice for binary parsing but I don't know much beyond that. Is there a particular decision tree that you follow for choosing a parser implementation? Have you learned anything interesting about the strengths or weaknesses of the libraries?

解决方案

You have several good options.

For lightweight parsing of String types:

• parsec
• polyparse

For packed bytestring parsing, e.g. of HTTP headers.

• attoparsec

For actual binary data most people use either:

• binary -- for lazy binary parsing
• cereal -- for strict binary parsing

The main question to ask yourself is what is the underlying string type?

• String?
• bytestring (strict)?
• bytestring (lazy)?
• unicode text

That decision largely determines which parser toolset you'll use.

The second question to ask is: do I already have a grammar for the data type? If so, I can just use happy

• The Happy parser generator

And obviously for custom data types there are a variety of good existing parsers:

• XML
  • haxml
  • xml-light
  • hxt
  • hexpat
• CSV
  • bytestring-csv
  • csv
• JSON
  • json
• rss/atom
  • feed

这篇关于选择一个Haskell解析器的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！