4
\$\begingroup\$

I'm a very new Haskell programmer, and I've written the following code for loading TSV files. I think it can be improved, but I'm not sure how.

  1. I feel like the giant "do" block in loadData is inelegant, and that there's likely a better way to approach this.
  2. I think I'm trying to avoid the IO monad because I'm not sure how to work with it, but that there's probably a better way to handle mapping parseTSV over the contents of the files.

One note: I'm not super concerned about performance - this will run once at the beginning of my program. I want to load in all the files entirely to build a composite data structure from their contents.

module LanguageMachine (loadData) where

import System.Directory (listDirectory)
import Data.List ((\\), elemIndex)
import Data.Maybe (mapMaybe)

parseTsv :: String -> [(String, Int)]
parseTsv contents = mapMaybe parseLine (lines contents)

parseLine :: String -> Maybe (String, Int)
parseLine line =
    case elemIndex '\t' line of
        Just i ->
            let
                (word, count) = splitAt i line
            in
                Just (word, read count :: Int)
        Nothing -> Nothing

loadData :: FilePath -> [FilePath] -> IO [(String, [(String, Int)])]
loadData path exclude = do
    files <- listDirectory path
    let filtered = files \\ exclude
    let prefixed = map ((path ++ "/") ++) filtered
    contents <- traverse readFile prefixed
    let results = map parseTsv contents
    return $ zip filtered results

The files look like this, which are two-value TSV lines of a word and then the number of occurrences of that word:

ARIA    4308
ORE 4208

Thank you!

| improve this question | | | | |
\$\endgroup\$
4
\$\begingroup\$

The loadData function looks just fine to me. I don't see a way it could be any more elegant given what it's doing. I do actually like the way you have separated reading the file and parsing it. That's the way to go.

Your concern about "avoiding the IO monad" shouldn't be a concern. On the contrary, that's actually a "best practice", known as "pushing I/O to the boundary". It means that the majority of your program should be pure, and only a thin shell should deal with external world. This way you can easily test and debug the majority of your program.

The only thing I might do is make the last three lines one expression:

traverse readFile prefixed
  <&> map parseTsv
  <&> zip filtered

I find this a bit more readable, but that's just a matter of personal taste.


But the parseLine function could sure use some improvement.

First, the control flow. Look what it's doing: compute a Maybe value, then if it's Just, compute another Maybe value from its contents. That's exactly what "bind" does! This means it can be nicely represented as a do block.

Second, read is a partial function. This means it can fail at runtime if there is a non-number in the file. I understand this probably Should Never Happen™, but you'd be surprised how many things that "should never happen" do, in fact, happen all the time. :-)

But since you're already in the Maybe context, it would be easy to use readMaybe instead, and skip the malformed numbers.

Applying both points:

parseLine line = do
    i <- elemIndex '\t' line
    let (word, strCount) = splitAt i line
    count <- readMaybe strCount
    return (word, count)
| improve this answer | | | | |
\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ Thank you! The <&> operator is very handy. I'm still getting comfortable thinking in monads, so your feedback is very helpful. \$\endgroup\$ – Erty Seidohl Mar 29 at 20:44
  • \$\begingroup\$ Glad I could help! \$\endgroup\$ – Fyodor Soikin Mar 30 at 7:42

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.