I'm looking to create a macro in P6 which converts its argument to a string.
Here's my macro:
macro tfilter($expr) {
quasi {
my $str = Q ({{{$expr}}});
filter-sub $str;
};
}
And here is how I call it:
my #some = tfilter(age < 50);
However, when I run the program, I obtain the error:
Unable to parse expression in quote words; couldn't find final '>'
How do I fix this?
Your use case, converting some code to a string via a macro, is very reasonable. There isn't an established API for this yet (even in my head), although I have come across and thought about the same use case. It would be nice in cases such as:
assert a ** 2 + b ** 2 == c ** 2;
This assert statement macro could evaluate its expression, and if it fails, it could print it out. Printing it out requires stringifying it. (In fact, in this case, having file-and-line information would be a nice touch also.)
(Edit: 007 is a language laboratory to flesh out macros in Perl 6.)
Right now in 007 if you stringify a Q object (an AST), you get a condensed object representation of the AST itself, not the code it represents:
$ bin/007 -e='say(~quasi { 2 + 2 })'
Q::Infix::Addition {
identifier: Q::Identifier "infix:+",
lhs: Q::Literal::Int 2,
rhs: Q::Literal::Int 2
}
This is potentially more meaningful and immediate than outputting source code. Consider also the fact that it's possible to build ASTs that were never source code in the first place. (And people are expected to do this. And to mix such "synthetic Qtrees" with natural ones from programs.)
So maybe what we're looking at is a property on Q nodes called .source or something. Then we'd be able to do this:
$ bin/007 -e='say((quasi { 2 + 2 }).source)'
2 + 2
(Note: doesn't work yet.)
It's an interesting question what .source ought to output for synthetic Qtrees. Should it throw an exception? Or just output <black box source>? Or do a best-effort attempt to turn itself into stringified source?
Coming back to your original code, this line fascinates me:
my $str = Q ({{{$expr}}});
It's actually a really cogent attempt to express what you want to do (turn an AST into its string representation). But I doubt it'll ever work as-is. In the end, it's still kind of based on a source-code-as-strings kind of thinking à la C. The fundamental issue with it is that the place where you put your {{{$expr}}} (inside of a string quote environment) is not a place where an expression AST is able to go. From an AST node type perspective, it doesn't typecheck because expressions are not a subtype of quote environments.
Hope that helps!
(PS: Taking a step back, I think you're doing yourself a disservice by making filter-sub accept a string argument. What will you do with the string inside of this function? Parse it for information? In that case you'd be better off analyzing the AST, not the string.)
(PPS: Moritz++ on #perl6 points out that there's an unrelated syntax error in age < 50 that needs to be addressed. Perl 6 is picky about things being defined before they are used; macros do not change this equation much. Therefore, the Perl 6 parser is going to assume that age is a function you haven't declared yet. Then it's going to consider the < an opening quote character. Eventually it'll be disappointed that there's no >. Again, macros don't rescue you from needing to declare your variables up-front. (Though see #159 for further discussion.))
First, please note that I ask this question out of curiosity, and I'm aware that using variable names like ## is probably not a good idea.
When using doubles quotes (or qq operator), scalars and arrays are interpolated :
$v = 5;
say "$v"; # prints: 5
$# = 6;
say "$#"; # prints: 6
#a = (1,2);
say "#a"; # prints: 1 2
Yet, with array names of the form #+special char like ##, #!, #,, #%, #; etc, the array isn't interpolated :
#; = (1,2);
say "#;"; # prints nothing
say #; ; # prints: 1 2
So here is my question : does anyone knows why such arrays aren't interpolated? Is it documented anywhere?
I couldn't find any information or documentation about that. There are too many articles/posts on google (or SO) about the basics of interpolation, so maybe the answer was just hidden in one of them, or at the 10th page of results..
If you wonder why I could need variable names like those :
The -n (and -p for that matter) flag adds a semicolon ; at the end of the code (I'm not sure it works on every version of perl though). So I can make this program perl -nE 'push#a,1;say"#a"}{say#a' shorter by doing instead perl -nE 'push#;,1;say"#;"}{say#', because that last ; convert say# to say#;. Well, actually I can't do that because #; isn't interpolated in double quotes. It won't be useful every day of course, but in some golfing challenges, why not!
It can be useful to obfuscate some code. (whether obfuscation is useful or not is another debate!)
Unfortunately I can't tell you why, but this restriction comes from code in toke.c that goes back to perl 5.000 (1994!). My best guess is that it's because Perl doesn't use any built-in array punctuation variables (except for #- and #+, added in 5.6 (2000)).
The code in S_scan_const only interprets # as the start of an array if the following character is
a word character (e.g. #x, #_, #1), or
a : (e.g. #::foo), or
a ' (e.g. #'foo (this is the old syntax for ::)), or
a { (e.g. #{foo}), or
a $ (e.g. #$foo), or
a + or - (the arrays #+ and #-), but not in regexes.
As you can see, the only punctuation arrays that are supported are #- and #+, and even then not inside a regex. Initially no punctuation arrays were supported; #- and #+ were special-cased in 2000. (The exception in regex patterns was added to make /[\c#-\c_]/ work; it used to interpolate #- first.)
There is a workaround: Because #{ is treated as the start of an array variable, the syntax "#{;}" works (but that doesn't help your golf code because it makes the code longer).
Perl's documentation says that the result is "not strictly predictable".
The following, from perldoc perlop (Perl 5.22.1), refers to interpolation of scalars. I presume it applies equally to arrays.
Note also that the interpolation code needs to make a decision on
where the interpolated scalar ends. For instance, whether
"a $x -> {c}" really means:
"a " . $x . " -> {c}";
or:
"a " . $x -> {c};
Most of the time, the longest possible text that does not include
spaces between components and which contains matching braces or
brackets. because the outcome may be determined by voting based on
heuristic estimators, the result is not strictly predictable.
Fortunately, it's usually correct for ambiguous cases.
Some things are just because "Larry coded it that way". Or as I used to say in class, "It works the way you think, provided you think like Larry thinks", sometimes adding "and it's my job to teach you how Larry thinks."
So, I happened to notice that last.fm is hiring in my area, and since I've known a few people who worked there, I though of applying.
But I thought I'd better take a look at the current staff first.
Everyone on that page has a cute/clever/dumb strapline, like "Is life not a thousand times too short for us to bore ourselves?". In fact, it was quite amusing, until I got to this:
perl -e'print+pack+q,c*,,map$.+=$_,74,43,-2,1,-84, 65,13,1,5,-12,-3, 13,-82,44,21, 18,1,-70,56, 7,-77,72,-7,2, 8,-6,13,-70,-34'
Which I couldn't resist pasting into my terminal (kind of a stupid thing to do, maybe), but it printed:
Just another Last.fm hacker,
I thought it would be relatively easy to figure out how that Perl one-liner works. But I couldn't really make sense of the documentation, and I don't know Perl, so I wasn't even sure I was reading the relevant documentation.
So I tried modifying the numbers, which got me nowhere. So I decided it was genuinely interesting and worth figuring out.
So, 'how does it work' being a bit vague, my question is mainly,
What are those numbers? Why are there negative numbers and positive numbers, and does the negativity or positivity matter?
What does the combination of operators +=$_ do?
What's pack+q,c*,, doing?
This is a variant on “Just another Perl hacker”, a Perl meme. As JAPHs go, this one is relatively tame.
The first thing you need to do is figure out how to parse the perl program. It lacks parentheses around function calls and uses the + and quote-like operators in interesting ways. The original program is this:
print+pack+q,c*,,map$.+=$_,74,43,-2,1,-84, 65,13,1,5,-12,-3, 13,-82,44,21, 18,1,-70,56, 7,-77,72,-7,2, 8,-6,13,-70,-34
pack is a function, whereas print and map are list operators. Either way, a function or non-nullary operator name immediately followed by a plus sign can't be using + as a binary operator, so both + signs at the beginning are unary operators. This oddity is described in the manual.
If we add parentheses, use the block syntax for map, and add a bit of whitespace, we get:
print(+pack(+q,c*,,
map{$.+=$_} (74,43,-2,1,-84, 65,13,1,5,-12,-3, 13,-82,44,21,
18,1,-70,56, 7,-77,72,-7,2, 8,-6,13,-70,-34)))
The next tricky bit is that q here is the q quote-like operator. It's more commonly written with single quotes:
print(+pack(+'c*',
map{$.+=$_} (74,43,-2,1,-84, 65,13,1,5,-12,-3, 13,-82,44,21,
18,1,-70,56, 7,-77,72,-7,2, 8,-6,13,-70,-34)))
Remember that the unary plus is a no-op (apart from forcing a scalar context), so things should now be looking more familiar. This is a call to the pack function, with a format of c*, meaning “any number of characters, specified by their number in the current character set”. An alternate way to write this is
print(join("", map {chr($.+=$_)} (74, …, -34)))
The map function applies the supplied block to the elements of the argument list in order. For each element, $_ is set to the element value, and the result of the map call is the list of values returned by executing the block on the successive elements. A longer way to write this program would be
#list_accumulator = ();
for $n in (74, …, -34) {
$. += $n;
push #list_accumulator, chr($.)
}
print(join("", #list_accumulator))
The $. variable contains a running total of the numbers. The numbers are chosen so that the running total is the ASCII codes of the characters the author wants to print: 74=J, 74+43=117=u, 74+43-2=115=s, etc. They are negative or positive depending on whether each character is before or after the previous one in ASCII order.
For your next task, explain this JAPH (produced by EyesDrop).
''=~('(?{'.('-)#.)#_*([]#!#/)(#)#-#),#(##+#)'
^'][)#]`}`]()`#.#]#%[`}%[#`#!##%[').',"})')
Don't use any of this in production code.
The basic idea behind this is quite simple. You have an array containing the ASCII values of the characters. To make things a little bit more complicated you don't use absolute values, but relative ones except for the first one. So the idea is to add the specific value to the previous one, for example:
74 -> J
74 + 43 -> u
74 + 42 + (-2 ) -> s
Even though $. is a special variable in Perl it does not mean anything special in this case. It is just used to save the previous value and add the current element:
map($.+=$_, ARRAY)
Basically it means add the current list element ($_) to the variable $.. This will return a new array with the correct ASCII values for the new sentence.
The q function in Perl is used for single quoted, literal strings. E.g. you can use something like
q/Literal $1 String/
q!Another literal String!
q,Third literal string,
This means that pack+q,c*,, is basically pack 'c*', ARRAY. The c* modifier in pack interprets the value as characters. For example, it will use the value and interpret it as a character.
It basically boils down to this:
#!/usr/bin/perl
use strict;
use warnings;
my $prev_value = 0;
my #relative = (74,43,-2,1,-84, 65,13,1,5,-12,-3, 13,-82,44,21, 18,1,-70,56, 7,-77,72,-7,2, 8,-6,13,-70,-34);
my #absolute = map($prev_value += $_, #relative);
print pack("c*", #absolute);
One of my pet peeves with debugging Perl code (in command line debbugger, perl -d) is the fact that mistakenly printing (via x command) the contents of a huge datastructure is guaranteed to freeze up your terminal for forever and a half while 100s of pages of data are printed. Epecially if that happens across slowish network.
As such, I'd like to be able to limit the amount of data that x prints.
I see two approaches - I'd be willing to try either if someone knows how to do.
Limit the amount of data any single command in debugger prints.
Better yet, somehow replace the built-in x command with a custom Perl method (which would calculate the "size" of the data structure, and refuse to print its contents without confirmation).
I'm specifically asking "how to replace x with custom code" - building a Good Enough "is the data structure too big" Perl method is something I can likely do on my own without too much effort although I see enough pitfalls preventing the "perfect" one from being a fairly frustrating endeavour. Heck, merely doing Data::Dumper->Dump and taking the length of the string might do the trick :)
Please note that I'm perfectly well aware of how to manually avoid the issue by recursively examining layers of datastructure (e.g. print the ref, print the count of keys/array elements, etc...)... the whole point is I want to be able to avoid thoughtlessly typing x $huge_pile_of_data without thinking - or stumbling on a bug populating said huge pile of data into what should be a scalar.
The x command takes an optional argument for the maximum depth to display. That's not quite the same as limiting the amount of data to N pages, but it's definitely useful to prevent overload.
DB<1> %h = (a => { b => { c => 1 } } )
DB<2> x %h
0 'a'
1 HASH(0x1d5ff44)
'b' => HASH(0x1d61424)
'c' => 1
DB<3> x 2 %h
0 'a'
1 HASH(0x1d5ff44)
'b' => HASH(0x1d61424)
You can specify the default depth to print via the o command, e.g.
DB<1>o dumpDepth=1
Add that to your .perldb file to apply it to all debugger sessions.
Otherwise, it looks like the x command invokes DB::dumpit() which is just a wrapper for dumpval.pl (or, more specifically, the main::dumpValue() sub it defines). You could modify/replace that script as you see fit. I'm not sure how you'd make it interactive, though.
The | command in the debugger pipes another command's output to your pager, e.g.
DB<1> |x %huge_datastructure
Is there any reason to use a scalar comma operator anywhere other than in a for loop?
Since the Perl scalar comma is a "port" of the C comma operator, these comments are probably apropos:
Once in a while, you find yourself in
a situation in which C expects a
single expression, but you have two
things you want to say. The most
common (and in fact the only common)
example is in a for loop, specifically
the first and third controlling
expressions. What if (for example) you
want to have a loop in which i counts
up from 0 to 10 at the same time that
j is counting down from 10 to 0?
So, your instinct that it's mainly useful in for loops is a good one, I think.
I occasionally use it in the conditional (sometimes erroneously called "the ternary") operator, if the code is easier to read than breaking it out into a real if/else:
my $blah = condition() ? do_this(), do_that() : do_the_other_thing();
It could also be used in some expression where the last result is important, such as in a grep expression, but in this case it's just the same as if a semicolon was used:
my #results = grep { setup(), condition() } #list;