On Sun, Mar 06, 2016 at 09:54:34AM +0000, Mike Houghton wrote:
Hi Francesco, Quick response! Thanks.
I see, so would it reduce to something like? many itemValue
and originally I was thinking the data structure that it would parse into would be
data Module = Module {— some record structure—}
but now it would be roughly like…
type Entry = (String, String)
data Module = Module [Entry]
Thanks
Yes, it would lead to some kind of (YourType, String) association list. If you are more interested in a datatype with records I see two ways of achieving it: a. a function `[(YrType, String)] -> RecordsData` (not so pretty but doable, also you can check for well-formedness here) (Using a sum type YrType is in my opinion better than plain Strings as it catches some more errors at compile time). b. directly via parsing, using `optionMaybe` and glue. Depending on how your input is structured this may or may not be more hairy (can name and source appear after an optional tag? What about duplicated tags? etc.). In its simplest form you can use a succinct applicative-style, but the castle crumbles if want more. See which fits better (I suspect a.), play with it and report back; parsing has never been an elegant business!