Is it possible to nest guards in Haskell?

Question

Haskell newbie here, trying to write code to parse math expressions. Code:

isDigit :: Char -> Bool
isDigit c = c >= \'0\' && c <= \'9\'

pars         


        

Answer 1

It is possible to chain guards, with ,. This does basically the same as && in fjarri's answer, but is more versatile when it comes to pattern guards.

What's not possible is nesting guards. Well, in your example that's only actually needed in the first clause. You could write

parseNumber (h:ls)
    | isDigit h
       = if isNothing p
           then Just ([h], ls)        -- Digit found    <<< ERROR!!
           else Just (h:fst d, snd d) -- Ends in a digit
    | h == '.'
    , not ('.' `elem` snd d)
       = Just (h:fst d, snd d)    -- We don't want multiple dots
    | otherwise = Nothing       -- Not a number, stop looking!

Answer 2

Recent GHC now has MultiWayIf:

{-# LANGUAGE MultiWayIf #-}

parseNumber :: String -> Maybe (String, String)
parseNumber [] = Just ("", "")
parseNumber (h:ls)
  | isDigit h = if
    | p == Nothing -> Just ([h], ls)
    | otherwise    -> Just (h:fst d, snd d)
  | h == '.'  = if
    | p == Nothing             -> Nothing
    | not ('.' `elem` (snd d)) -> Just (h:(fst d), snd d)
  | otherwise = Nothing
  where p@(~(Just d)) = parseNumber ls

But this is better written slightly differently anyhow, without the partiality.

{-# LANGUAGE MultiWayIf #-}

parseNumber :: String -> Maybe (String, String)
parseNumber [] = Just ("", "")
parseNumber (h:ls)
  | isDigit h = if
    | Nothing <- p -> Just ([h], ls) -- PatternGuards, on by default
    | Just d  <- p -> Just (h:fst d, snd d)
  | h == '.'  = if
    | Nothing <- p                         -> Nothing
    | Just d  <- p, not ('.' `elem` snd d) -> Just (h:(fst d), snd d)
  | otherwise = Nothing
  where p = parseNumber ls

and you may as well use maybe.

parseNumber :: String -> Maybe (String, String)
parseNumber "" = Just ("", "")
parseNumber (h:hs)
  | isDigit h = maybe (Just ([h], hs)) (\(num, rest') -> Just (h:num, rest')) rest
  | h == '.'  = maybe Nothing (\(num, rest') -> if '.' `elem` num then Nothing
                                                else Just (h:num, rest')
                              ) rest -- This logic is a bit wonky; it doesn't really work
  | otherwise = Nothing
  where rest = parseNumber hs

Answer 3

Put them in separated functions.

isDigit :: Char -> Bool
isDigit c = c >= '0' && c <= '9'


parseNumber :: String -> Maybe (String, String)
parseNumber [] = Just ("", "")
parseNumber (h:ls)
    | isDigit h  = f_p (h:ls)            
    | h == '.'   = temp (h: ls)         
    | otherwise  = Nothing       -- Not a number, stop looking!


f_p :: String -> Maybe (String, String)
f_p (h:ls)
    | parseNumber ls == Nothing  = Just([h], ls)         -- Digit found <<< ERROR!!
    | otherwise                  = Just (h:fst d, snd d) -- Ends in a digit
    where 
        Just d = parseNumber ls -- Float version of p. Not used if p is Nothing


temp :: String -> Maybe (String, String)
temp (h:ls)
    | parseNumber ls == Nothing  = Nothing                 -- Ends in a point
    | not ('.' `elem` (snd d))   = Just (h:(fst d), snd d) -- We don't want multiple dots
    where 
        Just d = parseNumber ls -- Float version of p. Not used if p is Nothing

Have to admit I did not tested this code.

Answer 4

No, you can't. We all want it, but nobody can come up with a sensible syntax.

Answer 5

When your function becomes exceedingly complicated and you cannot support the logic which is implemented with just guards alone, consider writing the function with abstract control functions instead:

import Control.Applicative 
import Control.Monad 

isDigit :: Char -> Bool
isDigit c = c >= '0' && c <= '9'

parseNumber :: String -> Maybe (String, String)
parseNumber [] = return ("", "")
parseNumber (h:ls) = dig <|> dot where -- h is either a digit or a dot
  p = parseNumber ls 
  dig = do 
    guard (isDigit h)                                 -- ensure h is a digit
    fmap (\(ds,r) -> (h:ds,r)) p 
      <|> return ([h],ls)  -- the alternative between two computations
                           -- either the tail is parsed and h prepended to the result
                           -- or the digit is returned by itself                         
  dot = do 
    guard (h == '.')             -- ensure h is a dot
    (ds,r) <- p                  -- parse the tail
    guard $ not $ '.' `elem` ds  -- ensure there is no dot in the tail
    return (h:ds,r)              -- result

This uses the Monad, Functor, and MonadPlus instances of Maybe to implement the parsing logic. In fact, this function generalizes to the type MonadPlus m => String -> m (String, String) - there is no actual use of Maybe constructors here.

The function is also easy to read. It is much more evident what is happening that in the version with guards.

Answer 6

No, but you can use cases if you'd like:

parseNumber :: String -> Maybe (String, String)
parseNumber [] = Just ("", "")
parseNumber (h:ls)
    | isDigit h =
         case () of
           () | p == Nothing -> Just([h], ls)
              | otherwise -> Just (h:fst d, snd d) -- Ends in a digit
    | h == '.' =
         case () of
           () | p == Nothing -> Nothing
              | not ('.' `elem` (snd d)) -> Just (h:(fst d), snd d)
    | otherwise = Nothing
    where 
        p      = parseNumber ls
        Just d = parseNumber ls

Alternatively, multiway if works in a similar manner (if True | p1 -> b ; | p2 -> c).