[bruce343434]

Right. My takeaway was "verify and validate once, then put it in a specially marked datastructure, or if your language allow it make the typesystem guarantee some conditions of the data, then work with that from there". Where does parsing come in the picture?

[vvillena]

Well, ain't that it? If you validate a string so that it contains some angle bracket tags at the beginning and the end, ensure that both the tag values contain the same string (except for one extra marker in the end tag), and store the tag name and the string within the tags in a purpose-made data structure, you can call it whatever you want. Some will call that a rudimentary XML parser.

[justinpombrio]

You understand it. It's using the word "parse" metaphorically, to mean "validate, then put it in a specially marked data structure". For example, `parse_int :: string -> maybe int` is a parsing function, and it "validates that the string is an integer, then puts it in a specially marked data structure called int". However, the post uses the word "parse" not only for true parsing functions (that convert text into a data structure), but also for conversions from data structure to data structure.

I also find this a confusing use of the word "parse", and it's not explained in the post, and I think "parse, don't validate" is a poor slogan as a result. The traditional slogan is "make illegal states unrepresentable", though that's a bit narrower of a concept.

[b3morales]

I don't think this is the same as "make illegal states unrepresentable"; it's a corollary (or the converse maybe):

"Make assertions of legal states representable"

[joshuamorton]

They're sort of the same. If you have str and safestr, and safestr is known to confiorm to some invariant, the illegal state of a, say str where validate hasn't been called, isn't representable.

[kortex]

> verify and validate once, then put it in a specially marked datastructure

Not to steal vvillena's thunder, but that's pretty much the dictionary definition of "parsing"

> analyze (a string or text) into logical syntactic components, typically in order to test conformability to a logical grammar.

Parsing is taking some collection of symbols, and emitting some other structure that obeys certain rules. Those symbols need not be text, they can be any abstract "thing". A symbol could be a full-blown data structure - you can parse a List into a NotEmptyList, where there's some associated grammar with the NEL that's a stricter version of the List grammar.

[justinpombrio]

Haha, "Those symbols need not be text", you say, right after quoting a definition that says they need to be "a string or text"!

There's a field of study called "parsing", which studies "parsers". Hundreds of papers. Very well defined problem: turning a list of symbols into a tree shaped parse tree (or data structure). The defining aspect of parsing, that makes it difficult and an interesting thing to study, is that you're starting with a list and ending with a tree. If you're converting tree to tree (that is, a typical data structure to a typical data structure), all the problems vanish (or change drastically) and all the parsing techniques are inapplicable.

I'm kind of annoyed that people are starting to use the word "parse" metaphorically. Bit by bit, precise words turn fuzzy. Alas, it will be a lost battle.

[samatman]

Sure, but the list of symbols can be an arbitrary collection where the symbols are 0 and 1.

Voila, now your 'string' is 'binary data' not 'text'.

Parsing binary data is my bread and butter, so I might be biased but: it works fine.

Anything which comes over the wire is a string, anything which comes out of store is a string. If you're using something like protobufs, that's great, because having to marshal/serialize/parse along every process boundary is expensive and probably unnecessary.

But at some point, and anywhere on the 'surface' of the system, data has to be un-flattened into a shape. That's parsing.

[kortex]

> Haha, "Those symbols need not be text", you say, right after quoting a definition that says they need to be "a string or text"!

Ha yeah nice catch, that's why I added that in there. In this case the dictionary is slightly wrong.

> The defining aspect of parsing, that makes it difficult and an interesting thing to study, is that you're starting with a list and ending with a tree.

Ah, I didn't know that! Great bit to learn.

In that case, I will say that the "increase a data structure's rules" is a bit ambiguous.

I think my statement is still correct in that "a symbol could be a data structure," right? Like you could take a list of dicts and emit a tree of dicts.

But wait, a list is a kind of tree, or rather, there is a parse tree of recursive head/tail branches. So I think you could still argue List->NotEmptyList is a Parse because NEL requires a nonzero "head" and zero or one NEL as "tail."

[justinpombrio]

> I think my statement is still correct in that "a symbol could be a data structure," right? Like you could take a list of dicts and emit a tree of dicts.

Yeah I guess. Text combinator libraries like Haskell's Parsec and Rust's Nom are typically parametric over the type of "characters". Realistically I don't think I've ever seen anyone use one of those libraries for an input that wasn't text-like, though; do you have a use case in mind?

> But wait, a list is a kind of tree, or rather, there is a parse tree of recursive head/tail branches.

Yes, so you can run into parsing problems when working with trees, if you work really hard at it. But if you do the correct action is "reconsider your life choices" and not "use parsing theory".