I’ve always used parser combinaties in Haskell and I’ve never seen the things you describe. I guess in Haskell one always directly apply the parts to the function you want (ie an AST node constructor).
replyI think this is because Haskell allows hiding the tuples construction/unwrapping with do-notation. My primary interaction with parser combinators, in OCaml, uses a similar trick with binding operators. If you don't have some sort of syntactic sugar like that they do become a lot more unwieldy.
replyWe are spoiled in so many ways by Haskell!
replyParser combinators alone makes monads (or really applicative functors) worth it. But then there are the all the other spectacular things we can do with monads!
This. The <$ and $> operators are very elegant for parsers.
replyThis. The <$ and $> operators are very elegant for parsers.
replyThis. The <$ and $> operators are very elegant for parsers.
replyThis. The <$ and $> operators are very elegant for parsers.
replyDoes your language have native tuple destructuring syntax?
replyThe ignore example is just p1 <* p2 in Haskell (that operator is in the standard library).
[dead]
reply