# Convert data back-and-forth between CSV files and pretty-print

I wrote a script to convert CSV files in human readable format and vice versa.

Human readable format is achieved like so:

$./transform table.csv inflate cola colb colc 1 a g 2 b g 3 c g 4 d g 5 eeeeeeeee g  And conversion back to CSV is done with: $ ./transformtable table.t
cola;colb;colc;
1;a;g;
2;b;g;
3;c;g;
4;d;g;
5;eeeeeeeee;g;


Code:

import Data.List
import Data.List.Split
import System.Environment
main = do
args <- getArgs
file <- readFile (args !! 0)
let lp = preprocess (lines file)
let erg = (if elem "inflate" args then (inflate) else (compress)) lp
mapM_ putStrLn $map concat erg rpad len string = take len$ string++(repeat ' ')

--ensure last col has elements
preprocess lines = map (rpad len) lines
where len = maximum $map (length) lines --calc lengths of the chunks(colname + spaces) for splitplaces dissect line = zipWith (\a b->length (a++b)) names spaces where names = wordsBy (==' ') line spaces= wordsBy (/=' ') (line++" ") --add " " to ensure space after last col-name compress lines = add_del$ transpose $map (shrinkcol) cols where delim = ';' head_lens = dissect (head lines) cols = transpose$ map (splitPlaces head_lens) lines
shrinkcol c = map (\el -> reverse $dropWhile (==' ')$ reverse $dropWhile (==' ') el) c add_del = map (map (++[delim])) inflate lines = transpose$ map padcol $table where table = transpose$ map (splitOn ";") lines --list of cols
where m = (1+) $maximum$ (map length) c --determine longest string in col, pad one more for prettiness


I'm relatively new to haskell, so I'm wondering if this can be done more elegantly.

# Names

The Haskell convention is camelCase. That is, start names with a lowercase letter, and join words together by capitalizing them. So head_lens would be headLens, or better yet, headerLengths.

## Use names with meanings, not just labels

Come to think of it, an even better name would be columnWidths, as that is not just what the value is, but what it means (and what it is used for). lp and erg don't tell me a lot, either. For preprocess I would suggest a name like rightPadLines. That way, I won't be so surprised to find out what it does :)

## Don't be afraid of longer names

It is also useful and nice for other readers not to use abbreviations, unless the scope is very small. So the a and b in dissect line are good and clear (very short scope -> very short names). add_del, on the other hand, would be more readable as addDelimiters. delim is a somewhat more conventional abbreviation.

# Types

## Use the type system

Yes, Haskell can find out what types your values and functions have. And it will be correct in many, many cases. But if you are wrong, Haskell cannot tell you, unless you tell the compiler what you intend to do. So always, always write the type signatures of at least the top-level bindings. That way, if your function is not yet finished, or you make a mistake, the compiler will be able to tell you almost exactly where.

So:

main :: IO ()
main = do -- ..

rpad :: Int -> String -> String
rpad len string = take -- ..

preprocess :: [String] -> [String]
preprocess lines = map -- ..

dissect :: String -> [Int]

compress :: [String] -> [[String]]

inflate :: [String] -> [[String]]


Adding those type signatures alone, makes the function more readable, because now I can expect what it is going to do.

# Use hlint on the code and heed warnings from ghc

Many warnings and suggestions are worthwile. They can point out possible mistakes or partial functions, but also show what an idiomatic Haskell solution could be. For instance:

readfile (args !! 0) is reminiscent of other languages, where the command line arguments are in an array, which you'd need to index. Using the 0th index though, is normally done by using the head function. readFile $head args is the suggested alternative. ## elem is more readable as elem Functions that take more than one argument, can be inserted between the first and second argument (infix) if you write backquotes around them. For many functions, such as elem, mod and div, this makes much sense. So if elem "inflate" args can be rewritten as if "inflate" elem args. ## Redundant parentheses In that same line, (inflate) and (compress) have parentheses around them, but they are really not necessary. Removing them makes the line more readable (even for LISP programmers). The same goes for map (length) lines in preprocess, map (shrinkcol) cols in compress and (map length) c in inflate. And even string++(repeat ' ') can do without the parentheses. ## Shadowed bindings Three functions use the name lines for a parameter, which happens to be the name of a function, too. It is best to heed this warning, for two reasons: 1. If you happen to want to split some string later on in those functions, you'll have to change the name anyway. 2. People who see lines somewhere, will probably think of the function first, be confused, then remember that it is a redefined value. Using ls is not that bad, by the way, especially if you change the type to be more documentational (see below). ## Eta reduction This mathematical term comes down to "remove the variable name", so that the focus lies more on what the function does, and less of what it functions on. The function shrinkcol has a c on both ends, and they can both be removed, resulting in: shrinkcol = map (\el -> reverse$ dropWhile (==' ') $reverse$ dropWhile (==' ') el)


Which expresses exactly the same, just in less "words".

## Avoid lambda

This warning, on the same function as above, suggests about the same thing, but now for the \el variable. However, because we use the $ for application of values, this line should be rewritten using . for composition. As f . g means: do f after g, this comes mostly down to just replacing the $ with .:

shrinkcol = map (reverse . dropWhile (==' ') . reverse . dropWhile (==' '))


## Another composition opportunity

The last warning that ghc and hlint give us, is to use composition in the mapM_ call. Instead of saying: "map putStrLn over the result of mapping concat over the list erg, and combine that into one IO action", you can say "map (putStrLn after concat) over the list erg, and combine that into one IO action". Which is shorter in English already :)

mapM_ (putStrLn . concat) erg


And now we are warning-free!

# Types

## Use the type system

What, again? Yes. But this time, use it to document the intent of the functions, not just the functionality. The easiest way to do this, is to declare simple type aliases. For instance, preprocess works on lists of String, but each String is actually a Line. So adding type Line = String, while it does not give any added compiler safety (Line is just an alias, and exactly the same as String), it does give a bit of documentation.

type Line = String
type Cell = String

preprocess :: [Line] -> [Line]

compress :: [Line] -> [[Cell]]

inflate :: [Line] -> [[Cell]]


Of course, making stronger types with constructors, using data is even better, so that the type system helps you check whether the code works, even before you run it. Then, you can write functions as transformations between types, instead of transformations between "just Strings".

• Ah... erg is short for ergebnis (result)? – joranvar Dec 30 '15 at 6:16
• Er, yes, I forgot to translate that one... – user2740 Dec 30 '15 at 15:06
• No problem. Its purpose is clear :) – joranvar Dec 30 '15 at 15:18