I can't quite understand the syntax used here:
let rec lex = parser
(* Skip any whitespace. *)
| [< ' (' ' | '\n' | '\r' | '\t'); stream >] -> lex stream
Firstly, I don't understand what it means to use a guard (vertical line) followed by parser.
And secondly, I can't seem to find the relevant syntax for the condition surrounded by [< and >]
Got the code from here. Thanks in advance!
|
means: "or" (does the stream matches this char or this char or ... ?)
| [< ' (' ' | '\n' | '\r' | '\t'); stream >] -> lex stream
means:
IF the stream (one char, in this clause, but it can be a sequence of
several chars) matches "space" or "new line" or "carriage return" or
"tabulation".
THEN consume the ("white") matching character and call lex with the
rest of the stream.
ELSE use the next clause (in your example: "filtering A to Z and a to
z chars" for identifiers). As the matched character has been consumed
by this clause,
(btw, adding '\n\r', which is "newline + carriage return" would be better to address this historical case; you can do it as an exercise).
To be able to parse streams in OCaml with this syntax, you need the modules from OCaml stdlib (at least Stream and Buffer) and you need the camlp4 or camlp5 syntax extension system that knows the meaning of the keywords parser, [<', etc.
In your toplevel, you can do as follows:
#use "topfind";; (* useless if already in your ~/.ocamlinit file *)
#camlp4o;; (* Topfind directive to load camlp4o in the Toplevel *)
# let st = Stream.of_string "OCaml"
val st : char Stream.t = <abstr>
# Stream.next st
- : char = 'O'
# Stream.next flux_car
- : char = 'C'
(* btw, Exception: Stdlib.Stream.Failure must be handled(empty stream) *)
# let rec lex = parser
| [< ' (' ' | '\n' | '\r' | '\t'); stream >] -> lex stream
| [< >] -> [< >]
(* just the beginning of the parser definition *)
# val lex : char Stream.t -> 'a = <fun>
Now you are up and running to deal with streams and LL(1) stream parsers.
The exammple you mentioned works well. If you play within the Toplevel, you can evaluate the token.ml and lexer.ml file with the #use directive to respect the module names (#use "token.ml"). Or you can directly evaluate the expressions of lexer.ml if you nest the type token in a module Token.
# let rec lex = parser (* complete definition *)
val lex : char Stream.t -> Token.token Stream.t = <fun>
val lex_number : Buffer.t -> char Stream.t -> Token.token Stream.t = <fun>
val lex_ident : Buffer.t -> char Stream.t -> Token.token Stream.t = <fun>
val lex_comment : char Stream.t -> Token.token Stream.t = <fun>
# let pgm =
"def fib(x) \
if x < 3 then \
1 \
else \
fib(x-1)+fib(x-2)";;
val pgm : string = "def fib(x) if x < 3 then 1 else fib(x-1)+fib(x-2)"
# let cs' = lex (Stream.of_string pgm);;
val cs' : Token.token Stream.t = <abstr>
# Stream.next cs';;
- : Token.token = Token.Def
# Stream.next cs';;
- : Token.token = Token.Ident "fib"
# Stream.next cs';;
- : Token.token = Token.Kwd '('
# Stream.next cs';;
- : Token.token = Token.Ident "x"
# Stream.next cs';;
- : Token.token = Token.Kwd ')'
You get the expected stream of type token.
Now a few technical words about camlp4 and camlp5.
It's indeed recommended not to use the so-called "camlp4" that is being deprecated, and instead use "camlp5" which is in fact the "genuine camlp4" (see hereafter). Assuming you want to use a LL(1) parser.
For that, you can use the following camlp5 Toplevel directive instead of the camlp4 one:
#require "camlp5";; (* add the path + loads the module (topfind directive) *)
#load "camlp5o.cma";;(* patch: manually loads camlp50 module,
because #require forgets to do it (why?)
"o" in "camlp5o" stands for "original syntax" *)
let rec lex = parser
| [< ' (' ' | '\n' | '\r' | '\t'); stream >] -> lex stream
| [< >] -> [< >]
# val lex : char Stream.t -> 'a = <fun>
More history about camlp4 and camlp5.
Disclaimer : while I try to be as neutral and factual as possible, this too short explanation may reflect also my personal opinion. Of course, discussion is welcome.
As an Ocaml beginner, I found camlp4 very attractive and powerful but it was not easy to distinguish what was exactly camlp4 and to find its more recent documentation.
In very brief :
It's an old and confused story mainly because of the naming of "camlp4". campl4 is a/the historical syntax extension system for OCaml. Someone decided to improve/retrofit camlp4 around 2006, but it seems that some design decisions turned it in something somehow considered by some people as a "beast" (often, less is more). So, it works, but "there is a lot of stuff under the hood" (its signature became very large).
His historical author, Daniel de Rauglaudre decided to keep on developing camlp4 his way and renamed it "campl5" to differentiate from what was the "new camlp4" (named camlp4). Even if camlp5 is not largely used, it's still maintained, operational and used, for example, by coq that has recently integrated a part of campl5 instead of being dependent of the whole camlp5 library (which doesn't mean that "coq doesn't use camlp5 anymore", as you could read).
ppx has become a mainstream syntax extension technology in the OCaml world (it seems that it's dedicated to make "limited and reliable" OCaml syntax extensions, mainly for small and very useful code generation (helpers functions, etc.); it's a side discussion). It doesn't mean that camlp5 is "deprecated". camlp5 is certainly misunderstood. I had hard time at the beginning, mainly because of its documentation. I wish I could read this post at that time! Anyway, when programming in OCaml, I believe it's a good thing to explore all kinds of technology. It's up to you to make your opinion.
So, the today so-called "camlp4" is in fact the "old campl4" (or the "new camlp4 of the past" ; I know, it's complicated).
LALR(1) parsers such as ocamlyacc or menhir are or have been made mainstream. They have a a bottom-up approach (define .mll and .mly, then compile to OCaml code).
LL(1) parsers, such as camlp4/camlp5, have a top-down approach, very close to functional style.
The best thing is that you compare then by yourself. Implementing a lexer/parser of your language is perfect for that: with ocamllex/menhir and with ocamllex/camlp5, or even with only camlp5 because it's also a lexer (with pros/cons).
I hope you'll enjoy your LLVM tutorial.
All technical and historical complementary comments are very welcome.
As #glennsl says, this page uses the campl4 preprocessor, which is considered obsolete by many in the OCaml community.
Here is a forum message from August 2019 that describes how to move from camlp4 to the more recent ppx:
The end of campl4
Unfortunately that doesn't really help you learn what that LLVM page is trying to teach you, which has little to do with OCaml it seems.
This is one reason I find the use of syntax extensions to be problematic. They don't have the staying power of the base language.
(On the other hand, OCaml really is a fantastic language for writing compilers and other language tools.)
Related
I need to build a lexical analyzer using Gocc, however no option to ignore case is mentioned in the documentation and I haven't been able to find anything related. Anyone have any idea how it can be done or should I use another tool?
/* Lexical part */
_digit : '0'-'9' ;
int64 : '1'-'9' {_digit} ;
switch: 's''w''i''t''c''h';
while: 'w''h''i''l''e';
!whitespace : ' ' | '\t' | '\n' | '\r' ;
/* Syntax part */
<<
import(
"github.com/goccmack/gocc/example/calc/token"
"github.com/goccmack/gocc/example/calc/util"
)
>>
Calc : Expr;
Expr :
Expr "+" Term << $0.(int64) + $2.(int64), nil >>
| Term
;
Term :
Term "*" Factor << $0.(int64) * $2.(int64), nil >>
| Factor
;
Factor :
"(" Expr ")" << $1, nil >>
| int64 << util.IntValue($0.(*token.Token).Lit) >>
;
For example, for "switch", I want to recognize no matter if it is uppercase or lowercase, but without having to type all the combinations. In Bison there is the option % option caseless, in Gocc is there one?
Looking through the docs for that product, I don't see any option for making character literals case-insensitive, nor do I see any way to write a character class, as in pretty well every regex engine and scanner generator. But nothing other than tedium, readability and style stops you from writing
switch: ('s'|'S')('w'|'W')('i'|'I')('t'|'T')('c'|'C')('h'|'H');
while: ('w'|'W')('h'|'H')('i'|'I')('l'|'L')('e'|'E');
(That's derived from the old way of doing it in lex without case-insensitivity, which uses character classes to make it quite a bit more readable:
[sS][wW][iI][tT][cC][hH] return T_SWITCH;
[wW][hH][iI][lL][eE] return T_WHILE;
You can come closer to the former by defining 26 patterns:
_a: 'a'|'A';
_b: 'b'|'B';
_c: 'c'|'C';
_d: 'd'|'D';
_e: 'e'|'E';
_f: 'f'|'F';
_g: 'g'|'G';
_h: 'h'|'H';
_i: 'i'|'I';
_j: 'j'|'J';
_k: 'k'|'K';
_l: 'l'|'L';
_m: 'm'|'M';
_n: 'n'|'N';
_o: 'o'|'O';
_p: 'p'|'P';
_q: 'q'|'Q';
_r: 'r'|'R';
_s: 's'|'S';
_t: 't'|'T';
_u: 'u'|'U';
_v: 'v'|'V';
_w: 'w'|'W';
_x: 'x'|'X';
_y: 'y'|'Y';
_z: 'z'|'Z';
and then explode the string literals:
switch: _s _w _i _t _c _h;
while: _w _h _i _l _e;
Hello i am encountering this error message in a Haskell program and i do not know where is the loop coming from.There are almost no IO methods so that i can hook myself to them and print the partial result in the terminal.
I start with a file , i read it and then there are only pure methods.How can i debug this ?
Is there a way to attach to methods or create a helper that can do the following:
Having a method method::a->b how can i somehow wrap it in a iomethod::(a->b)->IO (a->b) to be able to test in in GHCI (i want to insert some putStrLn-s etc ?
P.S My data suffer transformations IO a(->b->c->d->......)->IO x and i do not know how to debug the part that is in the parathesis (that is the code that contains the pure methods)
Types and typeclass definitions and implementations
data TCPFile=Rfile (Maybe Readme) | Dfile Samples | Empty
data Header=Header { ftype::Char}
newtype Samples=Samples{values::[Maybe Double]}deriving(Show)
data Readme=Readme{ maxClients::Int, minClients::Int,stepClients::Int,maxDelay::Int,minDelay::Int,stepDelay::Int}deriving(Show)
data FileData=FileData{ header::Header,rawContent::Text}
(>>?)::Maybe a->(a->Maybe b)->Maybe b
(Just t) >>? f=f t
Nothing >>? _=Nothing
class TextEncode a where
fromText::Text-> a
getHeader::TCPFile->Header
getHeader (Rfile _ ) = Header { ftype='r'}
getHeader (Dfile _ )= Header{ftype='d'}
getHeader _ = Header {ftype='e'}
instance Show TCPFile where
show (Rfile t)="Rfile " ++"{"++content++"}" where
content=case t of
Nothing->""
Just c -> show c
show (Dfile c)="Dfile " ++"{"++show c ++ "}"
instance TextEncode Samples where
fromText text=Samples (map (readMaybe.unpack) cols) where
cols=splitOn (pack ",") text
instance TextEncode Readme where
fromText txt =let len= length dat
dat= case len of
6 ->Prelude.take 6 .readData $ txt
_ ->[0,0,0,0,0,0] in
Readme{maxClients=Prelude.head dat,minClients=dat!!1,stepClients=dat!!2,maxDelay=dat!!3,minDelay=dat!!4,stepDelay=dat!!5} where
instance TextEncode TCPFile where
fromText = textToFile
Main
module Main where
import Data.Text(Text,pack,unpack)
import Data.Text.IO(readFile,writeFile)
import TCPFile(TCPFile)
main::IO()
main=do
dat<-readTcpFile "test.txt"
print dat
readTcpFile::FilePath->IO TCPFile
readTcpFile path =fromText <$> Data.Text.IO.readFile path
textToFile::Text->TCPFile
textToFile input=case readHeader input >>? (\h -> Just (FileData h input)) >>? makeFile of
Just r -> r
Nothing ->Empty
readHeader::Text->Maybe Header
readHeader txt=case Data.Text.head txt of
'r' ->Just (Header{ ftype='r'})
'd' ->Just (Header {ftype ='d'})
_ -> Nothing
makeFile::FileData->Maybe TCPFile
makeFile fd= case ftype.header $ fd of
'r'->Just (Rfile (Just (fromText . rawContent $ fd)))
'd'->Just (Dfile (fromText . rawContent $ fd))
_ ->Nothing
readData::Text->[Int]
readData =catMaybes . maybeValues where
maybeValues=mvalues.split.filterText "{}"
#all the methods under this line are used in the above method
mvalues::[Text]->[Maybe Int]
mvalues arr=map (\x->(readMaybe::String->Maybe Int).unpack $ x) arr
split::Text->[Text]
split =splitOn (pack ",")
filterText::[Char]->Text->Text
filterText chars tx=Data.Text.filter (\x -> not (x `elem` chars)) tx
I want first to clean the Text from given characters , in our case }{ then split it by ,.After the text is split by commas i want to parse them, and create either a Rfile which contains 6 integers , either a Dfile (datafile) which contains any given number of integers.
Input
I have a file with the following content: r,1.22,3.45,6.66,5.55,6.33,2.32} and i am running runghc main 2>err.hs
Expected Output : Rfile (Just (Readme 1.22 3.45 6.66 5.55 6.33 2.32))
In the TextEncode Readme instance, len and dat depend on each other:
instance TextEncode Readme where
fromText txt =let len= length dat
dat= case len of
To debug this kind of thing, other than staring at the code, one thing you can do is compile with -prof -fprof-auto -rtsopts, and run your program with the cmd line options +RTS -xc. This should print a trace when the <<loop>> exception is raised (or if the program loops instead, when you kill it (Ctrl+C)). See the GHC manual https://downloads.haskell.org/~ghc/latest/docs/html/users_guide/runtime_control.html#rts-flag--xc
As Li-yao Xia said part of the problem is the infinite recursion, but if you tried the following code, then the problem still remains.
instance TextEncode Readme where
fromText txt =let len= length [1,2,3,4,5,6] --dat
dat= case len of
The second issue is that the file contains decimal numbers but all the conversion function are expecting Maybe Int, changing the definitions of the following functions should give the expected results, on the other hand probably the correct fix is that the file should have integers and not decimal numbers.
readData::Text->[Double]
--readData xs = [1,2,3,4,5,6,6]
readData =catMaybes . maybeValues where
maybeValues = mvalues . split . filterText "{}"
--all the methods under this line are used in the above method
mvalues::[Text]->[Maybe Double]
mvalues arr=map (\x->(readMaybe::String->Maybe Double).unpack $ x) arr
data Readme=Readme{ maxClients::Double, minClients::Double,stepClients::Double,maxDelay::Double,minDelay::Double,stepDelay::Double}deriving(Show)
I think everything is in the title but I am looking specifically for:
What is the "standard" unit test framework in OCaml?
How do I integrate executing tests in the build?
How to automatically execute tests upon every file change?
As a bonus, I would be interested in test coverage tooling...
It seems that the package ounit enjoys quite a large popularity, there are several other packages like kaputt or broken – I am the author of the latter.
I guess you are interested as the specific part of TDD where tests can be automated, here is how I do it on my own projects. You can find a few examples on GitHub such as Lemonade or Rashell that both have a test suite found in their respective testsuite folders.
Usually I work according to the according workflow:
I start to work simultaneously on tests and interface (.mli) files, this way I write a minimal program and do not only write a test case for the functions I want to implement but also have the opportunity to experiment with interfaces to be sure that I have an easy-to-use interface.
For instance, for the interface to the find(1) command found in Rashell_Posix I started by writing test cases:
open Broken
open Rashell_Broken
open Rashell_Posix
open Lwt.Infix
let spec base = [
(true, 0o700, [ base; "a"]);
(true, 0o750, [ base; "a"; "b"]);
(false, 0o600, [ base; "a"; "b"; "x"]);
(false, 0o640, [ base; "a"; "y" ]);
(true, 0o700, [ base; "c"]);
(false, 0o200, [ base; "c"; "z"]);
]
let find_fixture =
let filename = ref "" in
let cwd = Unix.getcwd () in
let changeto base =
filename := base;
Unix.chdir base;
Lwt.return base
in
let populate base =
Toolbox.populate (spec base)
in
make_fixture
(fun () ->
Lwt_main.run
(Rashell_Mktemp.mktemp ~directory:true ()
>>= changeto
>>= populate))
(fun () ->
Lwt_main.run
(Unix.chdir cwd;
rm ~force:true ~recursive:true [ !filename ]
|> Lwt_stream.junk_while (fun _ -> true)))
let assert_find id ?expected_failure ?workdir predicate lst =
assert_equal id ?expected_failure
~printer:(fun fft lst -> List.iter (fun x -> Format.fprintf fft " %S" x) lst)
(fun () -> Lwt_main.run(
find predicate [ "." ]
|> Lwt_stream.to_list
|> Lwt.map (List.filter ((<>) "."))
|> Lwt.map (List.sort Pervasives.compare)))
()
lst
The spec and find_fixture functions are used to create a file hierarchy with the given names and permissions, to exercise the find function. Then the assert_find function prepares a test-case comparing the results of a call to find(1) with the expected results:
let find_suite =
make_suite ~fixture:find_fixture "find" "Test suite for find(1)"
|& assert_find "regular" (Has_kind(S_REG)) [
"./a/b/x";
"./a/y";
"./c/z";
]
|& assert_find "directory" (Has_kind(S_DIR)) [
"./a";
"./a/b";
"./c"
]
|& assert_find "group_can_read" (Has_at_least_permission(0o040)) [
"./a/b";
"./a/y"
]
|& assert_find "exact_permission" (Has_exact_permission(0o640)) [
"./a/y";
]
Simultaneously I was writing on the interface file:
(** The type of file types. *)
type file_kind = Unix.file_kind =
| S_REG
| S_DIR
| S_CHR
| S_BLK
| S_LNK
| S_FIFO
| S_SOCK
(** File permissions. *)
type file_perm = Unix.file_perm
(** File status *)
type stats = Unix.stats = {
st_dev: int;
st_ino: int;
st_kind: file_kind;
st_perm: file_perm;
st_nlink: int;
st_uid: int;
st_gid: int;
st_rdev: int;
st_size: int;
st_atime: float;
st_mtime: float;
st_ctime: float;
}
type predicate =
| Prune
| Has_kind of file_kind
| Has_suffix of string
| Is_owned_by_user of int
| Is_owned_by_group of int
| Is_newer_than of string
| Has_exact_permission of int
| Has_at_least_permission of int
| Name of string (* Globbing pattern on basename *)
| And of predicate list
| Or of predicate list
| Not of predicate
val find :
?workdir:string ->
?env:string array ->
?follow:bool ->
?depthfirst:bool ->
?onefilesystem:bool ->
predicate -> string list -> string Lwt_stream.t
(** [find predicate pathlst] wrapper of the
{{:http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/find.html} find(1)}
command. *)
Once I was pleased with my test-cases and interfaces, I could try to compile them, even without an implementation. This is possible with bsdowl by just giving an interface file instead of an implementation file in the Makefile.
Here compilation probably uncovered a few type errors in my tests that I could fix.
When the test compiled against the interface, I could implement the function, starting with an alibi function:
let find _ =
failwith "Rashell_Posix.find: Not implemented"
With this implementation I was able to compile my library and my test-suite. Of-course at this point, the test just fails.
At that point, I just needed to implement the Rashell_Posix.find function and iterate the tests until they passed.
This is how I do test-driven development in OCaml when I use automated tests. Some persons see interacting with the REPL as a form of test-driven development, this is a technique that I also like to use, it is rather straightforward to setup and use. The only setup step to use this latter form of test-driven-development in Rashell was to write an .ocamlinit file for the toplevel loading all the required libraries. This file looks like:
#use "topfind";;
#require "broken";;
#require "lemonade";;
#require "lwt.unix";;
#require "atdgen";;
#directory "/Users/michael/Workshop/rashell/src";;
#directory "/Users/michael/obj/Workshop/rashell/src";;
The two #directory directives correspond to the directories for sources and objects.
(Disclaimer: if you look carefully at the history, you will find that I took some liberties with the chronology, but there are other projects where I proceed exactly this way – I just cannot remember precisely which ones.)
I am trying to use NLTK package to capture the following chunk in a sentence:
verb + smth + noun
or it may be
verb + smth + noun + and + noun
I truthfully spent entire day messing with regex, but still nothing proper is produced..
I was looking at this tutorial which wasn't much of help.
When you have an idea of what those somethings that might come in between are, there is a relatively easy method using NLTK's CFG. This is most certainly not the most efficient way. For a comprehensive analysis, consult NLTK's book on chapter 8.
We have two patterns as you mentioned:
<verb> ... <noun>
<verb> ... <noun> "and" <noun>
We should assemble a list of VPs and NPs and also the range of possible words that could happen in between. As a silly little example:
grammar = nltk.CFG.fromstring("""
% start S
S -> VP SOMETHING NP
VP -> V
SOMETHING -> WORDS SOMETHING
SOMETHING ->
NP -> N 'and' N
NP -> N
V -> 'told' | 'scolded' | 'loved' | 'respected' | 'nominated' | 'rescued' | 'included'
N -> 'this' | 'us' | 'them' | 'you' | 'I' | 'me' | 'him'|'her'
WORDS -> 'among' | 'others' | 'not' | 'all' | 'of'| 'uhm' | '...' | 'let'| 'finish' | 'certainly' | 'maybe' | 'even' | 'me'
""")
Now suppose this is the list of the sentences we want to use our filter against:
sentences = ['scolded me and you', 'included certainly uhm maybe even her and I', 'loved me and maybe many others','nominated others not even him', 'told certainly among others uhm let me finish ... us and them', 'rescued all of us','rescued me and somebody else']
As you can see, the third and the last phrases don't pass the filter. We can check whether the rest match the pattern:
def sentence_filter(sent, grammar):
rd_parser = nltk.RecursiveDescentParser(grammar)
try:
for p in rd_parser.parse(sent):
print("SUCCESS!")
except:
print("Doesn't match the filter...")
for s in sentences:
s = s.split()
sentence_filter(s, grammar)
When we run this, we get this result:
>>>
SUCCESS!
SUCCESS!
Doesn't match the filter...
SUCCESS!
SUCCESS!
SUCCESS!
Doesn't match the filter...
>>>
I am new to Haskell. Previously I have programmed in Python and Java. When I am debugging some code I have a habit of littering it with print statements in the middle of code. However doing so in Haskell will change semantics, and I will have to change my function signatures to those with IO stuff. How do Haskellers deal with this? I might be missing something obvious. Please enlighten.
Other answers link the official doco and the Haskell wiki but if you've made it to this answer let's assume you bounced off those for whatever reason. The wikibook also has an example using Fibonacci which I found more accessible. This is a deliberately basic example which might hopefully help.
Let's say we start with this very simple function, which for important business reasons, adds "bob" to a string, then reverses it.
bobreverse x = reverse ("bob" ++ x)
Output in GHCI:
> bobreverse "jill"
"llijbob"
We don't see how this could possibly be going wrong, but something near it is, so we add debug.
import Debug.Trace
bobreverse x = trace ("DEBUG: bobreverse" ++ show x) (reverse ("bob" ++ x))
Output:
> bobreverse "jill"
"DEBUG: bobreverse "jill"
llijbob"
We are using show just to ensure x is converted to a string correctly before output. We also added some parenthesis to make sure the arguments were grouped correctly.
In summary, the trace function is a decorator which prints the first argument and returns the second. It looks like a pure function, so you don't need to bring IO or other signatures into the functions to use it. It does this by cheating, which is explained further in the linked documentation above, if you are curious.
Read this. You can use Debug.Trace.trace in place of print statements.
I was able to create a dual personality IO / ST monad typeclass, which will print debug statements when a monadic computation is typed as IO, them when it's typed as ST. Demonstration and code here: Haskell -- dual personality IO / ST monad? .
Of course Debug.Trace is more of a swiss army knife, especially when wrapped with a useful special case,
trace2 :: Show a => [Char] -> a -> a
trace2 name x = trace (name ++ ": " ++ show x) x
which can be used like (trace2 "first arg" 3) + 4
edit
You can make this even fancier if you want source locations
{-# LANGUAGE TemplateHaskell #-}
import Language.Haskell.TH
import Language.Haskell.TH.Syntax as TH
import Debug.Trace
withLocation :: Q Exp -> Q Exp
withLocation f = do
let error = locationString =<< location
appE f error
where
locationString :: Loc -> Q Exp
locationString loc = do
litE $ stringL $ formatLoc loc
formatLoc :: Loc -> String
formatLoc loc = let file = loc_filename loc
(line, col) = loc_start loc
in concat [file, ":", show line, ":", show col]
trace3' (loc :: String) msg x =
trace2 ('[' : loc ++ "] " ++ msg) x
trace3 = withLocation [| trace3' |]
then, in a separate file [from the definition above], you can write
{-# LANGUAGE TemplateHaskell #-}
tr3 x = $trace3 "hello" x
and test it out
> tr3 4
[MyFile.hs:2:9] hello: 4
You can use Debug.Trace for that.
I really liked Dons short blog about it:
https://donsbot.wordpress.com/2007/11/14/no-more-exceptions-debugging-haskell-code-with-ghci/
In short: use ghci, example with a program with code called HsColour.hs
$ ghci HsColour.hs
*Main> :set -fbreak-on-exception
*Main> :set args "source.hs"
Now run your program with tracing on, and GHCi will stop your program at the call to error:
*Main> :trace main
Stopped at (exception thrown)
Ok, good. We had an exception… Let’s just back up a bit and see where we are. Watch now as we travel backwards in time through our program, using the (bizarre, I know) “:back” command:
[(exception thrown)] *Main> :back
Logged breakpoint at Language/Haskell/HsColour/Classify.hs:(19,0)-(31,46)
_result :: [String]
This tells us that immediately before hitting error, we were in the file Language/Haskell/HsColour/Classify.hs, at line 19. We’re in pretty good shape now. Let’s see where exactly:
[-1: Language/Haskell/HsColour/Classify.hs:(19,0)-(31,46)] *Main> :list
18 chunk :: String -> [String]
vv
19 chunk [] = head []
20 chunk ('\r':s) = chunk s -- get rid of DOS newline stuff
21 chunk ('\n':s) = "\n": chunk s
^^