I would like to generate Perl Expect code automatically, does something like autoexpect exist for Perl's Expect??
This is not a good answer, but will have to do until a good answer comes along.
I ran the TCL autoexpect and it created a script file, I then wrote couple lines of perl code that parses the lines with "send" and "expect" tags and then uses the perl expect module to run them along with some other actions.
This hybrid approach gets me by, but I am still hoping for a better answer to come.
Related
I am debugging big perl program. To minimize debugging I would like only to debug the lines actually run.
Is there a tool which I can run my program under, that will give me a program only containing the lines actually being used (e.g. by commenting out the rest)?
You can use the Perl Debugger (http://perldoc.perl.org/perldebug.html).
Decent beginner's write up: http://www.thegeekstuff.com/2010/05/perl-debugger/
It sounds like you might want a coverage tool, like Devel::Cover, which indicates the lines which are being executed during a run of the code.
For example, where you currently execute your code as
perl yourprog args
instead you run
perl −MDevel::Cover yourprog args
cover
This will generate an HTML report showing the code which is actually executed.
I have a problem. I want to execute some commands in the Commandline of linux. I tested TProcess (So i am using Lazarus) but now when i am starting the programm, there is nothing, wich the Program do.
Here is my Code:
uses [...], unix, process;
[...]
var LE_Path: TLabeledEdit;
[...]
Pro1:=TProcess.Create(nil);
Pro1.CommandLine:=(('sudo open'+LE_Path.Text));
Pro1.Options := Pro1.Options; //Here i used Options before
Pro1.Execute;
With this Program, i want to open Files with sudo (The Programm is running on the User Interface)
->Sorry for my Bad English; Sorry for fails in the Question: I am using StackOverflow the first time.
I guess the solution was a missing space char?
Change
Pro1.CommandLine:=(('sudo open'+LE_Path.Text));
to
Pro1.CommandLine:=(('sudo open '+LE_Path.Text));
# ----------------------------^--- added this space char.
But if you're a beginner programmer, my other comments are still worth considering:
trying to use sudo in your first bit of code may be adding a whole extra set of problems. SO... Get something easier to work first, maybe
/bin/ls -l /path/to/some/dir/that/has/only/a/few/files.
find out how to print a statement that will be executed. This is the most basic form of debugging and any language should support that.
Your english communicated your problem well enough, and by including sample code and reasonable (not perfect) problem description "we" were able to help you. In general, a good question contains the fewest number of steps to re-create the problem. OR, if you're trying to manipulate data,
a. small sample input,
b. sample output from that same input
c. your "best" code you have tried
d. your current output
e. your thoughts about why it is not working
AND comments to indicate generally other things you have tried.
Python offers an interactive interpreter allowing the evaluation of little code snippets by submitting a couple of lines of code to the console. I was wondering if a tool with similar functionality (e.g. including a history accessible with the arrow keys) also exists for Perl?
There seem to be all kinds of solutions out there, but I can't seem to find any good recommendations. I.e. lots of tools are mentioned, but I'm interested in which tools people actually use and why. So, do you have any good recommendations, excluding the standard perl debugging (perl -d -e 1)?
Here are some interesting pages I've had a look at:
a question in the official Perl FAQ
another Stackoverflow question, where the answer mostly is the perl debugger and several links are broken
Perl Console
Perl Shell
perl -d -e 1
Is perfectly suitable, I've been using it for years and years. But if you just can't,
then you can check out Devel::REPL
If your problem with perl -d -e 1 is that it lacks command line history, then you should install Term::ReadLine::Perl which the debugger will use when installed.
Even though this question has plenty of answers, I'll add my two cents on the topic. My approach to the problem is easy if you are a ViM user, but I guess it can be done from other editors as well:
Open your ViM, and type your code. You don't need to save it on any file.
:w !perl for evaluation (:w !COMMAND pipes the buffer to the process obtained by running COMMAND. In this case the mighty perl interpreter!)
Take a look at the output
This approach is good for any interpreted language, not just for Perl.
In the case of Perl it is extremely convenient when you are writing your own modules, since in my experience the perl interpreter will refuse to reload a module (even when loading was attempted and failed). On the minus side, you will loose all your context every time, so if you are doing some heavy or slow operation, you need to save some intermediate results (whilst the perl console approach preserves the previously computed data).
If you just need the evaluation of an expression - which is the other use case for a perl console program - another good alternative is seeing the evaluation out of a perl -e command. It's fast to launch, but you have to deal with escaping (for this thing the $'...' syntax of Bash does the job pretty well.
Just use to get history and arrows:
rlwrap perl -de1
I have a bunch of scripts that I wrote at times when I did not realize how use v1.2.3; can be useful. So some of them may be using features from later versions of perl, some of them may be OK with, say, perl 5.8.
Now I would like to get that into some order and add proper uses where there is need for them, just to be able to sleep better. :-)
How should I do that? Is there any tool that could help me make an educated guess?
Perl::MinimumVersion
Find a minimum required version of perl for Perl code
The most reliable way is 1) to write a decent test suite, then 2) to run your tests using each version of Perl.
You've surely already done the first part (!), and the second part is actually pretty easy to do using perlbrew.
It is "common knowledge" that source filters are bad and should not be used in production code.
When answering a a similar, but more specific question I couldn't find any good references that explain clearly why filters are bad and when they can be safely used. I think now is time to create one.
Why are source filters bad?
When is it OK to use a source filter?
Why source filters are bad:
Nothing but perl can parse Perl. (Source filters are fragile.)
When a source filter breaks pretty much anything can happen. (They can introduce subtle and very hard to find bugs.)
Source filters can break tools that work with source code. (PPI, refactoring, static analysis, etc.)
Source filters are mutually exclusive. (You can't use more than one at a time -- unless you're psychotic).
When they're okay:
You're experimenting.
You're writing throw-away code.
Your name is Damian and you must be allowed to program in latin.
You're programming in Perl 6.
Only perl can parse Perl (see this example):
#result = (dothis $foo, $bar);
# Which of the following is it equivalent to?
#result = (dothis($foo), $bar);
#result = dothis($foo, $bar);
This kind of ambiguity makes it very hard to write source filters that always succeed and do the right thing. When things go wrong, debugging is awkward.
After crashing and burning a few times, I have developed the superstitious approach of never trying to write another source filter.
I do occasionally use Smart::Comments for debugging, though. When I do, I load the module on the command line:
$ perl -MSmart::Comments test.pl
so as to avoid any chance that it might remain enabled in production code.
See also: Perl Cannot Be Parsed: A Formal Proof
I don't like source filters because you can't tell what code is going to do just by reading it. Additionally, things that look like they aren't executable, such as comments, might magically be executable with the filter. You (or more likely your coworkers) could delete what you think isn't important and break things.
Having said that, if you are implementing your own little language that you want to turn into Perl, source filters might be the right tool. However, just don't call it Perl. :)
It's worth mentioning that Devel::Declare keywords (and starting with Perl 5.11.2, pluggable keywords) aren't source filters, and don't run afoul of the "only perl can parse Perl" problem. This is because they're run by the perl parser itself, they take what they need from the input, and then they return control to the very same parser.
For example, when you declare a method in MooseX::Declare like this:
method frob ($bubble, $bobble does coerce) {
... # complicated code
}
The word "method" invokes the method keyword parser, which uses its own grammar to get the method name and parse the method signature (which isn't Perl, but it doesn't need to be -- it just needs to be well-defined). Then it leaves perl to parse the method body as the body of a sub. Anything anywhere in your code that isn't between the word "method" and the end of a method signature doesn't get seen by the method parser at all, so it can't break your code, no matter how tricky you get.
The problem I see is the same problem you encounter with any C/C++ macro more complex than defining a constant: It degrades your ability to understand what the code is doing by looking at it, because you're not looking at the code that actually executes.
In theory, a source filter is no more dangerous than any other module, since you could easily write a module that redefines builtins or other constructs in "unexpected" ways. In practice however, it is quite hard to write a source filter in a way where you can prove that its not going to make a mistake. I tried my hand at writing a source filter that implements the perl6 feed operators in perl5 (Perl6::Feeds on cpan). You can take a look at the regular expressions to see the acrobatics required to simply figure out the boundaries of expression scope. While the filter works, and provides a test bed to experiment with feeds, I wouldn't consider using it in a production environment without many many more hours of testing.
Filter::Simple certainly comes in handy by dealing with 'the gory details of parsing quoted constructs', so I would be wary of any source filter that doesn't start there.
In all, it really depends on the filter you are using, and how broad a scope it tries to match against. If it is something simple like a c macro, then its "probably" ok, but if its something complicated then its a judgement call. I personally can't wait to play around with perl6's macro system. Finally lisp wont have anything on perl :-)
There is a nice example here that shows in what trouble you can get with source filters.
http://shadow.cat/blog/matt-s-trout/show-us-the-whole-code/
They used a module called Switch, which is based on source filters. And because of that, they were unable to find the source of an error message for days.