[lkitching]

> The requirements from the post are arbitrary and could (should) be anything that best-illustrates the thesis of the post

The post is showing how using more expressive types can simplify your code through a very simple example. You started out saying the NonEmpty type is unnecessary and now you're complaining it's not complicated enough, so it's not clear what your actual objection is here.

> The function in my example does statically define that the returned list is non-empty

The type given in your example was

    getConfDirs :: Maybe [FilePath]

this is inhabited by (Just []) so no it doesn't statically guarantee that.

> A "parser" would maybe return the non-empty list if parsing was successful

That's exactly what the nonEmpty function in the post does:

    nonEmpty :: [a] -> Maybe (NonEmpty a)

[kingdomcome50]

> The post is showing how using more expressive types can simplify your code

This is called "using a type system" and has nothing to do with parsing or validation. You just don't "get it" I suppose. I feel like we are talking right past each other. You are so hung up on the types that you are just failing to take in the essence of what's going on.

I'll say this one more time: the specific type returned by `getConfDirs` is completely irrelevant -- other than whether it is wrapped in `Maybe` or not (because this best-illustrates parsing vs. validation). The returned type is an implementation detail that is chosen by the author. It is not necessary or "required" that we parse a string into a list (read that again). It's really quite simple:

    // this is parsing
    getConfDirs :: Maybe Config

    // this is validation
    getConfDirs :: Config // might throw

How these functions are implemented is not relevant. The irony is that choosing a list representation makes for a good example of parsing precisely because we can't know how many elements are in the list. That is, it gives the author the opportunity to further-illustrate parsing by:

    // more parsing
    maybeCacheDir <- (confDirs >>= first) // or second, third, fourth, etc.

The author's example code is NOT illustrating parsing. Period. They are essentially illustrating a constructor named `getConfigurationDirectories` -- which is the most classic case of validation imaginable (TS):

    // 1. This is their first example
    class ConfigurationDirectories {

        dirs: FilePath[];

        constructor(env) {
         
            let dirs = env("config").split(",");

            if (dirs.length < 1) throw "Error!";

            this.dirs = dirs;
        }

        get cacheDir() {

            if (this.dirs.length < 1) throw "Cannot happen!"; 

            return this.dirs[0];
        }
    }

    // 2. This is their "fixed" example with all sorts of unnecessary "NonEmpty" gymnastics because they have chosen the wrong abstraction
    type NonEmpty<T> = [T, ...T[]];

    const eg: NonEmpty<string> = []; // error 

    class ConfigurationDirectories {

        dirs: NonEmpty<FilePath>;

        constructor(env) {
         
            let dirs = env("config").split(",");

            if (dirs.length < 1) throw "Error!";

            this.dirs = dirs as NonEmpty<FilePath>;
        }

        get cacheDir() {
            
            // now the compiler also knows dirs is not empty
            return this.dirs[0];
        }
    }

    // 3. This is BETTER than their "fixed" example because it is even simpler
    class ConfigurationDirectories {

        cacheDir: FilePath;

        constructor(env) {
         
            let dirs = env("config").split(",");

            if (dirs.length < 1) throw "Error!";

            this.cacheDir = dirs[0];
        }
    }

    // usage
    const config = new ConfigurationDirectories(getEnv());

    const cache = initializeCache(config.cacheDir);

 

You see how the above translates to the author's code? Nothing above qualifies as "parsing". Their examples are defining a function with a guard that validates the input. The author then get confused and decides to go on this side-quest of how to trick the compiler because the first function wasn't actually accomplishing their goal (they have to validate twice!). But you know what would have avoided all of it? Parsing (i.e. actually using the types to simplify their code). Simple. Linear. Fail-safe. Parsing.

I'm not really sure why you are dying on this hill. You can't "win" this argument. The best you can accomplish is to learn something yourself through this discussion. It's just a matter of fact that the author is (mis)using `Maybe` to the detriment of their examples. And that isn't an attack on the author! You needn't defend them. We've all written code that wasn't perfect. This is just another instance.

Maybe if the title were something like, "How to validate with static guarantees in Haskell" I wouldn't have said anything...

* I thought you were referring to my TS example (which does statically define the return-type to be non-empty)

[lkitching]

> You are so hung up on the types that you are just failing to take in the essence of what's going on.

The post is about type-driven design, which is about representing invariants in the type system where possible. The post is very clear about this. The example chosen to illustrate it is a very simple one where a list is augmented with an extra property (non-emptiness). The exact representation is not important, so yes they could have created their own custom type instead of using (NonEmpty a) but this is beside the point. You have now made two attempts to 'improve' this representation, first by just using a plain list (which the post explicitly rejects) and now by just using a single 'cache dir' instead. You can't 'simplify' the solution by just throwing away half the requirements - it's a collection of items which must also be non-empty.

> The author's example code is NOT illustrating parsing. Period

Once again, the author is very clear about what they mean by 'validation' and 'parsing':

    The difference lies entirely in the return type: validateNonEmpty always returns (), the type that contains no information, but parseNonEmpty returns NonEmpty a, a refinement of the input type that preserves the knowledge gained in the type system.

The entire point of 'parsing' in this approach is to obtain a refinement of the input type in the representation. Your 'better' example is not a refinement of a list.

You appear to be insisting that validation is just anything that throws exceptions, but this is wrong - validation is when the properties being checked are not reflected in the input type. Parsers have to be able to signal errors, and exceptions is one of the ways of doing that. This is why your previous example of 'parsing' is just validating:

    const dirs = getEnv("dirs").split(",");
     if (dirs.length < 1) throw "ERROR";
     return dirs;

The type of this expression is just `[String]` which does not guarantee the non-emptiness being checked. If you have another definition of validation vs parsing you need to state it clearly, because your counterexamples do not contradict the definition in the post.

> Their examples are defining a function with a guard that validates the input. The author then get confused and decides to go on this side-quest of how to trick the compiler because the first function wasn't actually accomplishing their goal (they have to validate twice!). But you know what would have avoided all of it? Parsing

This is literally what the post is showing by switching

    getConfigurationDirectories :: IO [FilePath]

with

    getConfigurationDirectories :: IO (NonEmpty FilePath)

you keep insisting this is 'not parsing' but the post explains why they think it qualifies and you haven't given your own definition which contradicts it.

> It's just a matter of fact that the author is (mis)using `Maybe` to the detriment of their example

There's no mis-use of Maybe in the post, and as I've already explained, the point of the post is to eliminate Maybes. It's only used in two places - to represent the partiality of the head and nonEmpty functions.