Weird! When legal?
Hello,
> class samesame { hello samesame { say "Wosup?" } }
===SORRY!=== Error while compiling:
Unexpected block in infix position (missing statement control word before the
expression?)
--> class samesame { hello samesame⏏ { say "Wosup?" } }
expecting any of:
infix
infix stopper
postfix
Why is this a special case instead of a common undeclared error? The
second 'samesame' could be 'Instant' and do the same.
I'm not seeing how to continue from the ⏏ to make a statement.
rir
Re: Weird! When legal?
$ raku -e 'class samesame { hello samesame, { say "Wosup?" } }'
===SORRY!=== Error while compiling -e
Undeclared routine:
hello used at line 1. Did you mean 'shell'?
Are you missing a comma there? Did you intend to call the "hello" subroutine,
with "samesame" and the block as parameters?
If not, what *did* you mean to accomplish?
> On 24 Feb 2021, at 17:40, rir wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
>> class samesame { hello samesame { say "Wosup?" } }
>
> ===SORRY!=== Error while compiling:
> Unexpected block in infix position (missing statement control word before the
> expression?)
> --> class samesame { hello samesame⏏ { say "Wosup?" } }
> expecting any of:
> infix
> infix stopper
> postfix
>
> Why is this a special case instead of a common undeclared error? The
> second 'samesame' could be 'Instant' and do the same.
> I'm not seeing how to continue from the ⏏ to make a statement.
>
>
> rir
>
Re: Weird! When legal?
This started with my mis-remembering "multi method" like:
class Myclass { multi-method Rat { 'Rat' } }
Then wondering why is Raku accepting the unknown 'multi-method'
followed by a known classname; and only tripping over the block or
parentheses.
It is just an odd puzzle for me that "UnknownBareId KnownClassId"
is accepted has the start of a valid statement. How would such
a statement be completed?
Thanks,
rir
On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 05:48:07PM +0100, Elizabeth Mattijsen wrote:
> $ raku -e 'class samesame { hello samesame, { say "Wosup?" } }'
> ===SORRY!=== Error while compiling -e
> Undeclared routine:
>hello used at line 1. Did you mean 'shell'?
>
> Are you missing a comma there? Did you intend to call the "hello"
> subroutine, with "samesame" and the block as parameters?
>
> If not, what *did* you mean to accomplish?
>
> > On 24 Feb 2021, at 17:40, rir wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> >> class samesame { hello samesame { say "Wosup?" } }
> >
> > ===SORRY!=== Error while compiling:
> > Unexpected block in infix position (missing statement control word before
> > the expression?)
> > --> class samesame { hello samesame⏏ { say "Wosup?" } }
> > expecting any of:
> > infix
> > infix stopper
> > postfix
> >
> > Why is this a special case instead of a common undeclared error? The
> > second 'samesame' could be 'Instant' and do the same.
> > I'm not seeing how to continue from the ⏏ to make a statement.
> >
> >
> > rir
> >
>
Re: Weird! When legal?
On 2021-02-24 rir wrote:
> It is just an odd puzzle for me that "UnknownBareId KnownClassId"
> is accepted has the start of a valid statement. How would such
> a statement be completed?
Let's go through a few examples::
raku -e 'foo 1'
===SORRY!=== Error while compiling -e
Undeclared routine:
foo used at line 1
simple and clear error: syntax is correct, ``foo`` must be the name of
a sub, but it's never defined.
Closer to what you got::
raku -e 'foo 1 2'
===SORRY!=== Error while compiling -e
Two terms in a row
at -e:1
--> foo 1⏏ 2
expecting any of:
infix
infix stopper
postfix
statement end
statement modifier
statement modifier loop
notice the list of expected things. Did we mean ``foo 1 + 2``, ``foo
1, 2``, ``foo 1 if 2``?
Now for what you saw::
raku -e 'foo 1 { 2; }'
===SORRY!=== Error while compiling -e
Unexpected block in infix position (missing statement control word before the
expression?)
at -e:1
--> foo 1⏏ { 2; }
expecting any of:
infix
infix stopper
postfix
Again, did we mean ``foo 1 ~~ { 2; }``, ``foo 1, { 2; }``, ``foo 1 if
{ 2; }``?
In all these cases, ``foo`` is presumed to be the name of a sub,
because (I think) it's at the start of the statement, and it's not a
known keyword. Then the parser tries to make sense of the following
tokens, and gets confused.
So, to answer "How would such a statement be completed?":
* with an infix (a comma, any infix operator that can take (in your
case) a type and a block, …)
* I'm not sure what an "infix stopper" is
* a postfix (like ``if``, ``for``, ``with``…)
--
Dakkar -
GPG public key fingerprint = A071 E618 DD2C 5901 9574
6FE2 40EA 9883 7519 3F88
key id = 0x75193F88
Re: Weird! When legal?
Gianni,
That is helpful. I don't think it conclusive. Since I am stating
the initial term is unknown, I think there is no legal statement
possible.
A sigilless variable could also start a statement.
I suppose textual parsing the terms of a statement is attempted before
checking the meaningfulness of identifiers. Here I think rakudo is
looking for the signature before trying to resolve the call, then bails
before checking the first term's validity which could offer more
info about a failure.
Like you, I don't know what an 'infix stopper' is. All of 'infix
stopper', 'control word', and 'modifier loop' are phrases that don't
exist on docs.raku.org.
I think I interpreted "before the expression" poorly.
Thanks,
rir
On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 06:18:11PM +, Gianni Ceccarelli wrote:
> On 2021-02-24 rir wrote:
> > It is just an odd puzzle for me that "UnknownBareId KnownClassId"
> > is accepted has the start of a valid statement. How would such
> > a statement be completed?
>
> Let's go through a few examples::
>
> raku -e 'foo 1'
> ===SORRY!=== Error while compiling -e
> Undeclared routine:
> foo used at line 1
>
> simple and clear error: syntax is correct, ``foo`` must be the name of
> a sub, but it's never defined.
>
> Closer to what you got::
>
> raku -e 'foo 1 2'
> ===SORRY!=== Error while compiling -e
> Two terms in a row
> at -e:1
> --> foo 1⏏ 2
> expecting any of:
> infix
> infix stopper
> postfix
> statement end
> statement modifier
> statement modifier loop
>
> notice the list of expected things. Did we mean ``foo 1 + 2``, ``foo
> 1, 2``, ``foo 1 if 2``?
>
> Now for what you saw::
>
> raku -e 'foo 1 { 2; }'
> ===SORRY!=== Error while compiling -e
> Unexpected block in infix position (missing statement control word before
> the expression?)
> at -e:1
> --> foo 1⏏ { 2; }
> expecting any of:
> infix
> infix stopper
> postfix
>
> Again, did we mean ``foo 1 ~~ { 2; }``, ``foo 1, { 2; }``, ``foo 1 if
> { 2; }``?
>
> In all these cases, ``foo`` is presumed to be the name of a sub,
> because (I think) it's at the start of the statement, and it's not a
> known keyword. Then the parser tries to make sense of the following
> tokens, and gets confused.
>
> So, to answer "How would such a statement be completed?":
>
> * with an infix (a comma, any infix operator that can take (in your
> case) a type and a block, …)
> * I'm not sure what an "infix stopper" is
> * a postfix (like ``if``, ``for``, ``with``…)
>
> --
Dakkar -
> GPG public key fingerprint = A071 E618 DD2C 5901 9574
>6FE2 40EA 9883 7519 3F88
> key id = 0x75193F88
>
Re: Weird! When legal?
On Wednesday, February 24, rir wrote:
> That is helpful. I don't think it conclusive. Since I am stating
> the initial term is unknown, I think there is no legal statement
> possible.
This is legal --
class samesame { hello samesame }
sub hello($x) {}
sub sameasame { "hello" }
Brian
