Day 10 – Don’t quote me on it…

In many areas, Perl 6 provides you with a range of sane defaults for the common cases along with the power to do something a little more interesting when you need it. Quoting is no exception.

The Basics

The two most common quoting constructs are the single and double quotes. Single quotes are simplest: they let you quote a string and just about the only “magic” they provide is being able to stick a backslash before a single quote, which escapes it. Since backslash has this special meaning, you can write an explicit backslash with \\. However, you don’t even need to do that, since any other backslashes just pass on straight through. Here’s some examples.

> say 'Everybody loves Magical Trevor'
Everybody loves Magical Trevor
> say 'Oh wow, it\'s backslashed!'
Oh wow, it's backslashed!
> say 'You can include a \\ like this'
You can include a \ like this
> say 'Nothing like \n is available'
Nothing like \n is available
> say 'And a \ on its own is no problem'
And a \ on its own is no problem

Double quotes are, naturally, twice as powerful. :-) They support a range of backslash escapes, but more importantly they allow for interpolation. This means that variables and closures can be placed within them, saving you from having to use the concatenation operator or other string formatting constructs so often. Here are some simple examples.

> say "Ooh look!\nLine breaks!"
Ooh look!
Line breaks!
> my $who = 'Ninochka'; say "Hello, dear $who"
Hello, dear Ninochka
> say "Hello, { prompt 'Enter your name: ' }!"
Enter your name: Jonathan
Hello, Jonathan!

The second example shows the interpolation of a scalar, and the third shows how closures can be placed inside double quoted strings also. The value the closure produces will be stringified and interpolated into the string. But what about all the other sigils besides “$”? The rule is that you can interpolate all of them, but only if they are followed by some kind of postcircumfix (that is, an array or hash subscript, parentheses to make an invocation, or a method call). In fact, you can put all of these on a scalar too.

> my @beer = <Chimay Hobgoblin Yeti>;
Chimay Hobgoblin Yeti
> say "First up, a @beer[0]"
First up, a Chimay
> say "Then @beer[1,2].join(' and ')!"
Then Hobgoblin and Yeti!
> say "Tu je &prompt('Ktore pivo chces? ')"
Ktore pivo chces? Starobrno
Tu je Starobrno

Here you can see interpolation of an array element, a slice that we then call a method on and even a function call. The postcircumfix rule happily means that we don’t go screwing up your email address any more.

> say "Please spam me at"
Please spam me at

Choose Your Own Delimiters

The single and double quotes are suitable for a bunch of cases, but what if you want to use a bunch of single or double quotes inside the string? Escaping them would rather suck. Thing is, you could probably make that argument about any choice of quoting characters. So instead of making the choice for you, Perl 6 lets you pick. The q and qq quote constructs expect to be followed by a delimiter. If it’s something with a matching closer, it will look for that (for example, if you use an opening curly then your string is terminated by a closing curly; note that there’s only a finite set of these, and no, it doesn’t include having a comet be terminated by a snowman). Otherwise it looks for the same thing to terminate the string. Note you can also use multi-character openers and closers too (but only by repeating the same character). Otherwise, the q gives you the same semantics as single quotes, and qq gives you the same semantics as double quotes.

> say q{C'est la vie}
C'est la vie
> say q{{Unmatched } and { are { OK } in { here}}
Unmatched } and { are { OK } in { here
> say qq!Lottery results: {(1..49).roll(6).sort}!
Lottery results: 12 13 26 34 36 46


All of the quoting constructs demonstrated so far allow you to include multiple lines of content. However, for that there’s usually a better way: here documents. There can be started with either q or qq, and then with the :to adverb being used to specify the string we expect to find, on a line of its own, at the end of the quoted text. Let’s see how this works, illustrated by a touching story.

print q:to/THE END/
    Once upon a time, there was a pub. The pub had
    lots of awesome beer. One day, a Perl workshop
    was held near to the pub. The hackers drank
    the pub dry. The pub owner could finally afford
    a vacation.

The output of this script is as follows:

Once upon a time, there was a pub. The pub had
lots of awesome beer. One day, a Perl workshop
was held near to the pub. The hackers drank
the pub dry. The pub owner could finally afford
a vacation.

Notice how the text is not indented like in the program source. Heredocs remove indentation automatically, up to the indentation level of the terminator. If we’d used qq, we could have interpolated things into the heredoc. Note that this is all implemented by using the indent method on strings, but if your string doesn’t do any interpolation we do the call to indent at compile time as an optimization.

You can also have multiple heredocs, and even call methods on the data that will be located in the heredoc (note the call to lines in the following program).

my ($input, @searches) = q:to/INPUT/, q:to/SEARCHES/.lines;
    Once upon a time, there was a pub. The pub had
    lots of awesome beer. One day, a Perl workshop
    was held near to the pub. The hackers drank
    the pub dry. The pub owner could finally afford
    a vacation.

for @searches -> $s {
    say $input ~~ /$s/
        ?? "Found $s"
        !! "Didn't find $s";

The output of this program is:

Found beer
Didn't find masak
Found vacation
Didn't find whisky

Quote Adverbs for Custom Quoting Constructs

The single and double quote semantics, also available through q and qq, cover most cases. But what if you have a situation where you want to, say, interpolate closures but not scalars? This is where quote adverbs come in. They allow you to turn certain quoting features on and off. Here’s an example.

> say qq:!s"It costs $10 to {<eat nom>.pick} here."
It costs $10 to eat here.

Here, we use the semantics of qq, but then turn off scalar interpolation. This means we can write the price without worrying about it trying to interpolate the 11th capture of the last regex. Note that this is just using the standard colonpair syntax. If you want to start from a quote construct that supports basically nothing, and then just turn on some options, you can use the Q construct.

> say Q{$*OS\n&sin(3)}
> say Q:s{$*OS\n&sin(3)}
> say Q:s:b{$*OS\n&sin(3)}
> say Q:s:b:f{$*OS\n&sin(3)}

Here we start with a featureless quoting construct, then turn on extra features: first scalar interpolation, then backslash escapes, then function interpolation. Note that we could have chosen any delimiter we wished too.

Quote Constructs are Languages

Finally, it’s worth mentioning that when the parser enters a quoting construct, really it is switching to parsing a different language. When we build up quoting constructs from adverbs, really this is just mixing extra roles into the base quoting language to turn on extra features. For the curious, here’s how Rakudo does it. Whenever we hit a closure or some other interpolation, the language is temporarily switched back to the main language. This is why you can do things like:

> say "Hello, { prompt "Enter your name: " }!"
Enter your name: Jonathan
Hello, Jonathan!

And the parser doesn’t get terribly confused about the fact that the closure being interpolated contains another double quoted string. That is, we’re parsing the main language, then slip into a quoting language, then recurse into the main language again, and finally recurse into the quoting language again to parse the string in the closure in the string in the program. It’s like the Perl 6 parser wants to give us all matryoshka dolls for Christmas. :-)

Day 5 – A Perl 6 Debugger

There’s much more to the developer experience of a language than its design, features and implementations. While the language and its implementations are perhaps the thing developers will spend most time with, the overall experience will also involve interaction with the community, reading documentation, using modules and employing various development tools. Thus, it’s important that Perl 6 make progress on these fronts too. Over the past year, we’ve taken some good steps forward in these areas; there’s now, the module ecosystem has grown, and the module installation tooling has improved. Another big step forward with regards to tooling – and the topic of this post – is that an interactive Perl 6 debugger is now available.

Running With The Debugger

The debugger has been included with the last few Rakudo * releases. If you have one of those, you’re all set. Just run perl6-debug instead of perl6. It takes the same set of options, so if your normal invocation involves, for example, using the -I flag to set the include path for modules, it’ll Just Work Like Usual. Of course, what happens next is entirely different. The debugger will show you each module it is loading, followed by placing you at the first interesting statement of the program, highlighted in yellow.


Note how it takes care to put you on the first line that actually does something, skipping the my statement above it (it’s getting increasingly smart about this).

The Basics

Hitting enter allows you to single-step through the program. At any point, you can look at variables, call methods on variables, or even evaluate expressions.


If you want to move statement by statement, but never descend into a function call or method call, type an s, followed by enter. To step out of the current sub (that is, run until it returns then break in its caller), use so to step out. To run the program until it hits an exception, just use r. Even at the point you get an exception, you can still access variables to try and dissect what went wrong.


One final variant, rt, will run until an exception is thrown, but handled. You’ll break at the point of the throw. This means you’re not disadvantaged in the debugger if you took care to handle exceptions well in your program; you can still break when they are thrown and use the debugger to help understand why. :-)


Sometimes, you know exactly where the juicy stuff happens in your program that you wish to debug. If only you could just run until you got there. Turns out you can – that’s what breakpoints are for. We can add one, use r to run, and it will stop where we placed the breakpoint.


Note that you don’t have to type out the full name of the file you want to put the breakpoint in; any unambiguous substring of the name of a file that is loaded will be sufficient.

I won’t cover them here, but there are also tracepoints, which instead of breaking will log the value of an expression each time a certain place in the program is hit. Later, you can display the log. It’s like adding print statements, but without the print statement going in your code, removing the risk of them accidentally making it into a commit (‘cus we’ve all done that one, right? :-))

Regex and Grammar Debugging

When the debugger detects you are in a regex or grammar, it offers a little extra help. As well as allowing you to single-step your way through the regex, atom by atom, it also displays the match text, indicating what has been matched so far.


Here, you can see that the pattern already successfully matched SELECT, and is now looking for a literal * or will try to call the field list rule. If in a regex, which may backtrack, the match position  jumps backwards when backtracking happens, so you can understand the backtracking behavior of the pattern.

Yes, Perl 5 Regexes Too!

Rakudo has some support for the :P5 adverb on regexes, which allows use of the Perl 5 regex syntax. Here the debugger is used in REPL mode (where you enter an expression, then can immediately debug it) to explore the difference between alternations in Perl 5 and Perl 6 (in Perl 5 they go left to right, in Perl 6 they have longest token matching semantics, such that it tries the thing that will match most characters first).


The debugger in REPL mode is great for exploring and understanding how things will execute (and as such can serve as a learning or teaching aid). Another use is for debugging modules without having to write a test script; just write a use statement in the debugger or you can even supply the module using the -M command line flag and the debugger will load it!

What About Funky Stuff, Like Macros?

That is, macros, BEGIN time, eval, and those other things where your Perl 6 program does the time warp again, doing a bit of runtime at compile time or compiling some more stuff at runtime. The debugger is built for it. If a macro is applied, the debugger will place you in it. Notice below how we’re still in the process of loading the second file, and did not get to the third yet – we really are debugging at BEGIN time!


Any lines of code that are stripped out by the macro are simply never hit at runtime. And what about statements in quasi blocks? The debugger will take you there, so you not only know what macro was applied, but can dig into exactly what it does too.


Just as bits of runtime happening at compile time work out fine, any code that gets eval‘d at runtime is also compiled with debug hooks, meaning that you can step straight into it and debug the evaluated code.

Written in Perl 6 and NQP!

You might think that writing a debugger must involve all kinds of low-level hackery. In fact, that’s not the case. The debug hooks mechanism is written in NQP, and the command line user interface is written in Perl 6. This is significant from a couple of angles. The first is the fact that we can write something like this without breaking the encapsulation of the compiler, but instead just by subclassing the Grammar, Actions and Compiler objects and twiddling with the AST. In fact, the debugger was built without any changes being required to Rakudo as it already existed. This provides important feedback on our compiler architecture – this time, very positive feedback. Things are extensible in the ways they were designed to be. The second is that writing so much of it in Perl 6 is a healthy bit of dogfooding – using the product in order to build further products. My hope is that, since most of what people would want to change is actually written in the Perl 6 part, it will feel quite hackable by the community at large.

And What Of Future Plans?

Various features are still to come: conditional breakpoints, dumping tracepoint output to a file, showing the path taken through a grammar to get to the current point, and various bits of configurability. The command line interface is nice, but of course having some extra options would be even nicer. I’m interested in a web-based interface, but also in integration with tools like Padre. There’s some work afoot on a common protocol for these things, which could make such integration possible without having to re-invent too many wheels. In the meantime, having an interactive debugger which is aware of and works well with a wide range of Perl 6 language features is a solid step forward. Happy debugging, and feature ideas (or patches ;-)) are welcome; here’s the GitHub repo!

The view from the inside: using meta-programming to implement Rakudo

In my previous article for the Perl 6 advent calendar, I looked at how we can use the meta-programming facilities of Rakudo Perl 6 in order to build a range of tools, tweak the object system to our liking or even add major new features “from the outside”. While it’s nice that you can do these things, the Perl 6 object system that you get by default is already very rich and powerful, supporting a wide range of features. Amongst them are:

  • Classes
  • Parametric roles
  • Attributes
  • Methods (including private ones)
  • Delegation
  • Introspection
  • Subset (aka. refinement) types
  • Enums

That’s a lot of stuff to implement, but it’s all done by implementing meta-objects, and therefore we can take advantage of OOP – with both classes and roles – to factor it. The only real difference between the meta-programming we saw in my last article and the meta-programming we do while implementing the core Perl 6 object system in Rakudo is that the meta-objects are mostly written in NQP. NQP is a vastly smaller, much more easily optimizable and portable subset of Perl 6. Being able to use it also helps us to avoid many painful bootstrapping issues. Since it is mostly a small subset of Perl 6, it’s relatively easy to get in to.

In this article, I want to take you inside of Rakudo and, through implementing a missing feature, give you a taste of what it’s like to hack on the core language. So, what are we going to implement? Well, one feature of roles is that they can also serve as interfaces. That is, if you write:

role Describable {
    method describe() { ... }
class Page does Describable {

Then we are meant to get a compile time error, since the class Page does not implement the method “describe”. At the moment, however, there is no error at compile time; we don’t get any kind of failure until we call the describe method at runtime. So, let’s make this work!

One key thing we’re going to need to know is whether a method is just a stub, with a body containing just “…”, “???” or “!!!”. This is available to us by checking its .yada method. So, we have that bit. Question is, where to check it?

Unlike classes, which have the meta-object ClassHOW by default, there  isn’t a single RoleHOW. In fact, roles show up in no less than four different forms. The two most worth knowing about are ParametricRoleHOW and ConcreteRoleHOW. Every role is born parametric. Whether you explicitly give it extra parameters or not, it is always parametric on at least the type of the invocant. Before we can ever use a role, it has to be composed into a class. Along the way, we have to specialize it, taking all the parametric things and replacing them with concrete ones. The outcome of this is a role type with a meta-object of type ConcreteRoleHOW, which is now ready for composition into the class.

So that’s roles themselves, but what about composing them? Well, the actual composition is performed by two classes, RoleToClassApplier and RoleToRoleApplier. RoleToClassApplier is actually only capable of applying a single role to a class. This may seem a little odd: classes can do multiple roles, after all. However, it turns out that a neat way to factor this is to always “sum” multiple roles to a single one, and then apply that to the class. Anyway, it would seem that we need to be doing some kind of check in RoleToClassApplier. Looking through, we see this:

my @methods := $to_compose_meta.methods($to_compose, :local(1));
for @methods {
    my $name;
    try { $name := $ }
    unless $name { $name := ~$_ }
    unless has_method($target, $name, 1) {
        $target.HOW.add_method($target, $name, $_);

OK, so, it’s having a bit of “fun” with, of all things, looking up the name of the method. Actually it’s trying to cope with NQP and Rakudo methods having slightly different ideas about how the name of a method is looked up. But that aside, it’s really just a loop going over the methods in a role and adding them to the class. Seems like a relatively opportune time to spot the yada case, which indicates we require a method rather than want to compose one into the class. So, we change it do this:

my @methods := $to_compose_meta.methods($to_compose, :local(1));
for @methods {
    my $name;
    my $yada := 0;
    try { $name := $ }
    unless $name { $name := ~$_ }
    try { $yada := $_.yada }
    if $yada {
        unless has_method($target, $name, 0) {
            pir::die("Method '$name' must be implemented by " ~
            $$target) ~
            " because it is required by a role");
    elsif !has_method($target, $name, 1) {
        $target.HOW.add_method($target, $name, $_);

A couple of notes. The first is that we’re doing binding, because NQP does not have assignment. Binding is easier to analyze and generate code for. Also, the has_method call is passing an argument of 0 or 1, which indicates whether we want to consider methods in just the target class or any of its parents (note that there’s no True/False in NQP). If the class inherits a method then we’ll consider that as good enough: it has it.

So, now we run our program and we get:

Method 'describe' must be implemented by Page because it is required by a role

Which is what we were after. Note that the “SORRY!” indicates it is a compile time error. Success!

So, are we done? Not so fast! First, let’s check the inherited method case works out. Here’s an example.

role Describable {
    method describe() { ... }
class SiteItem {
    method describe() { say "It's a thingy" }
class Page is SiteItem does Describable {

And…oh dear. It gives an error. Fail. So, back to RoleToClassApplier. And…aha.

sub has_method($target, $name, $local) {
    my %mt := $target.HOW.method_table($target);
    return nqp::existskey(%mt, $name)

Yup. It’s ignoring the $local argument. Seems it was written with the later need to do a required methods check in mind, but never implemented to handle it. OK, that’s an easy fix – we just need to go walking the MRO (that is, the transitive list of parents in dispatch order).

sub has_method($target, $name, $local) {
    if $local {
        my %mt := $target.HOW.method_table($target);
        return nqp::existskey(%mt, $name);
    else {
        for $target.HOW.mro($target) {
            my %mt := $_.HOW.method_table($_);
            if nqp::existskey(%mt, $name) {
                return 1;
        return 0;

With that fixed, we’re in better shape. However, you may be able to imagine another case that we didn’t yet handle. What if another role provides the method? Well, first let’s see what the current failure mode is. Here’s the code.

role Describable {
    method describe() { ... }
role DefaultStuff {
    method describe() { say "It's a thingy" }
class Page does Describable does DefaultStuff {

And here’s the failure.

Method 'describe' must be resolved by class Page because it exists
in multiple roles (DefaultStuff, Describable)

So, it’s actually considering this as a collision. So where do collisions actually get added? Happily, that just happens in one place: in RoleToRoleApplier. Here’s the code in question.

if +@add_meths == 1 {
    $target.HOW.add_method($target, $name, @add_meths[0]);
else {
    # More than one - add to collisions list.
    $target.HOW.add_collision($target, $name, %meth_providers{$name});

We needn’t worry if we just have one method and it’s a requirement rather than an actual implementation – it’ll just do the right thing. So it’s just the second branch that needs consideration. Here’s how we change things.

if +@add_meths == 1 {
    $target.HOW.add_method($target, $name, @add_meths[0]);
else {
    # Find if any of the methods are actually requirements, not
    # implementations.
    my @impl_meths;
    for @add_meths {
        my $yada := 0;
        try { $yada := $_.yada; }
        unless $yada {

    # If there's still more than one possible - add to collisions list.
    # If we got down to just one, add it. If they were all requirements,
    # just choose one.
    if +@impl_meths == 1 {
        $target.HOW.add_method($target, $name, @impl_meths[0]);
    elsif +@impl_meths == 0 {
        $target.HOW.add_method($target, $name, @add_meths[0]);
    else {
        $target.HOW.add_collision($target, $name, %meth_providers{$name});

Essentially, we filter out those that are implementations of the method rather than just requirements. If we are left with just a single method, then it’s the only implementation, and it satisfies the requirements, so we add it and we don’t need to do anything further. If we discover they are all requirements, then we don’t want to flag up a collision, but instead we just pick any of the required methods and pass it along. They’ll all give the same error. Otherwise, if we have multiple implementations, then it’s a real collision so we add it just as before. And…it works!

So, we run the test suite, things look good…and commit.

3 files changed, 48 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

And there we go – Rakudo now supports a part of the spec that it never has before, and it wasn’t terribly much effort to put in. And that just leaves me to go to the fridge and grab a Christmas ale to relax after a little meta-hacking. Cheers!

Meta-programming: what, why and how

Sometimes, it’s good to take ones understanding of a topic, throw it away and try to build a new mental model of it from scratch. I did that in the last couple of years with object orientation. Some things feel ever so slightly strange to let go of and re-evaluate. For many people, an object really is “an instance of a class” and inheritance really is a core building block of OOP. I suspect many people who read this post will at this point be thinking, “huh, of course they really are” – and if so, that’s totally fair enough. Most people’s view of OOP will, naturally, be based around the languages they’ve applied object orientation in, and most of the mainstream languages really do have objects that are instances of classes and really do have inheritance as a core principle.

Step back and look around, however, and things get a bit more blurry. JavaScript doesn’t have any notion of classes. CLOS (the Common Lisp Object System) does have classes, but they don’t have methods. And even if we do just stick with the languages that have classes with methods, there’s a dizzying array of “extras” playing their part in the language’s OO world view; amongst them are interfaces, mixins and roles.

Roles – more often known as traits in the literature – are a relatively recent arrival on the OO scene, and they serve as an important reminder than object orientation is not finished yet. It’s a living, breathing paradigm, undergoing its own evolution just as our programming languages in general are.

And that brings me nicely on to Perl 6 – a language that from the start has set out to be able to evolve. At a syntax level, that’s done by opening up the grammar to mutation – in a very carefully controlled way, such that you always know what language any given lexical scope is in. Meta-programming plays that same role, but in the object orientation and type system space.

So what is a meta-object? A meta-object is simply an object that describes how a piece of our language works. What sorts of things in Perl 6 have meta-objects? Here’s a partial list.

  • Classes
  • Roles
  • Subsets
  • Enumerations
  • Attributes
  • Subroutines
  • Methods
  • Signatures
  • Parameters

So that’s meta-objects, but what about the protocol? You can read protocol as “API” or “interface”. It’s an agreed set of methods that a meta-object will provide if it wants to expose certain features. Let’s consider the API for anything that can have methods, such as classes and roles. At a minimum, it will provide:

  • add_method – adds a method to the object
  • methods – enables introspection of the methods that the object has
  • method_table – provides a hash of the methods in this type, excluding any that may be inherited

What about something that you can call a method on? It just has to provide one thing:

  • find_method – takes an object and a name, and returns the method if one exists

By now you may be thinking, “wait a moment, is there something that you can call a method on, but that does not have methods”? And the answer is – yes. For example, an enum has values that you can call a method on – the methods that the underlying type of the enumeration provides. You can’t actually add a method to an enum itself, however.

What’s striking about this is that we are now doing object oriented programming…to implement our object oriented language features. And this in turn means that we can tweak and extend our language – perhaps by subclassing an existing meta-object, or even by writing a new one from scratch. To demonstrate this, we’ll do a simple example, then a trickier one.

Suppose we wanted to forbid multiple inheritance. Here’s the code that we need to write.

my class SingleInheritanceClassHOW
    is Metamodel::ClassHOW
    method add_parent(Mu $obj, Mu $parent) {
        if +self.parents($obj, :local) > 0 {
            die "Multiple inheritance is forbidden!";
my module EXPORTHOW { }
EXPORTHOW.WHO.<class> = SingleInheritanceClassHOW;

What are we doing here? First, we inherit from the standard Perl 6 implementation of classes, which is defined by the class Metamodel::ClassHOW. (For now, we also inherit from Mu, since meta-objects currently consider themselves outside of the standard type hierarchy. This may change.) We then override the add_parent method, which is called whenever we want to add a parent to a class. We check the current number of (local) parents that a class has; if it already has one, then we die. Otherwise, we use callsame in order to just call the normal add_parent method, which actually adds the parent.

You may wonder what the $obj parameter that we’re taking is, and why it is needed. It is there because if we were implementing a prototype model of OOP, then adding a method to an object would operate on the individual object, rather than stashing the method away in the meta-object.

Finally, we need to export our new meta-object to anything that uses our module, so that it will be used in place of the “class” package declarator. Do do this, we stick it in the EXPORTHOW module, under the name “class”. The importer pays special attention to this module, if it exists. So, here it is in action, assuming we put our code in a module This program works as usual:

use si;
class A { }
class B is A { }

While this one:

class A { }
class B { }
class C is A is B { }

Will die with:

Multiple inheritance is forbidden!

At compile time.

Now for the trickier one. Let’s do a really, really simple implementation of aspect oriented programming. We’ll write an aspects module. First, we declare a class that we’ll use to mark aspects.

my class MethodBoundaryAspect is export {

Next, when a class is declared with “is SomeAspect”, where SomeAspect inherits from MethodBoundaryAspect, we don’t want to treat it as inheritance. Instead, we’d like to add it to a list of aspects. Here’s an extra trait modifier to do that.

multi trait_mod:<is>(Mu:U $type, MethodBoundaryAspect:U $aspect) is export {
    $aspect === MethodBoundaryAspect ??
        $type.HOW.add_parent($type, $aspect) !!
        $type.HOW.add_aspect($type, $aspect);

We take care to make sure that the declaration of aspects themselves – which will directly derive from this class – still works out by continuing to call add_parent for those. Otherwise, we call a method add_aspect, which we’ll define in a moment.

Supposing that our aspects work by optionally implementing entry and exit methods, which get passed the details of the call, here’s our custom meta-class, and the code to export it, just as before.

my class ClassWithAspectsHOW
    is Metamodel::ClassHOW
    has @!aspects;
    method add_aspect(Mu $obj, MethodBoundaryAspect:U $aspect) {
    method compose(Mu $obj) {
        for @!aspects -> $a {
        for self.methods($obj, :local) -> $m {
            $m.wrap(-> $obj, |args {
                $a.?entry($, $obj, args);
                my $result := callsame;
                $a.?exit($, $obj, args, $result);
my module EXPORTHOW { }
EXPORTHOW.WHO.<class> = ClassWithAspectsHOW;

Here, we see how add_aspect is implemented – it just pushes the aspect onto a list. The magic all happens at class composition time. The compose method is called after we’ve parsed the closing curly of a class declaration, and is the point at which we finalize things relating to the class declaration. Ahead of that, we loop over any aspects we have, and the wrap each method declared in the class body up so that it will make the call to the entry and exit methods.

Here’s an example of the module in use.

use aspects;
class LoggingAspect is MethodBoundaryAspect {
    method entry($method, $obj, $args) {
        say "Called $method with $args";
    method exit($method, $obj, $args, $result) {
        say "$method returned with $result.perl()";
class Example is LoggingAspect {
    method double($x) { $x * 2 }
    method square($x) { $x ** 2 }
say Example.double(3);
say Example.square(3);

And the output is:

Called double with 3
double returned with 6
Called square with 3
square returned with 9

So, a module providing basic aspect orientation support in 30 or so lines. Not so bad.

As you can imagine, we can go a long way with meta-programming, whether we want to create policies, development tools (like Grammar::Debugger) or try to add entirely new concepts to our language. Happy meta-hacking.

Privacy and OOP

There are a number of ways in which Perl 6 encourages you to restrict the scope of elements of your program. By doing so, you can better understand how they are used and will be able to refactor them more easily later, potentially aiding agility. Lexical scoping is one such mechanism, and subroutines are by default lexically scoped.

Let’s take a look at a class that demonstrates some of the object oriented related privacy mechanisms.

    class Order {
        my class Item {
            has $.name;
            has $.price;
        has Item @!items;
        method add_item($name, $price) {
            @!items.push($name, :$price))
        method discount() {
        method total() {
            self!compute_subtotal() - self!compute_discount();
        method !compute_subtotal() {
            [+] @!items>>.price
        method !compute_discount() {
            my $sum = self!compute_subtotal();
            if $sum >= 1000 {
                $sum * 0.15
            elsif $sum >= 100 {
                $sum * 0.1
            else {

Taking a look at this, the first thing we notice is that Item is a lexical class. A class declared with “my” scope can never be referenced outside of the scope it is declared within. In our case, we never leak instances of it outside of our Order class either. This makes our class an example of the aggregate pattern: it prevents outside code from holding direct references to the things inside of it. Should we ever decide to change the way that our class represents its items on the inside, we have complete freedom to do so.

The other example of a privacy mechanism at work in this class is the use of private methods. A private method is declared just like an ordinary method, but with an exclamation mark appearing before its name. This gives it the same visibility as an attribute (which, you’ll note, are also declared with an exclamation mark – a nice bit of consistency). It also means you need to call it differently, using the exclamation mark instead of the dot.

Private methods are non-virtual. This may seem a little odd at first, but is consistent: attributes are also not visible to subclasses. By being non-virtual, we also get some other benefits. The latest Rakudo, with its optimizer cranked up to its highest level, optimizes calls to private methods and complains about missing ones at compile time. Thus a typo:

    self!compite_subtotal() - self!compute_discount();

Will get us a compile time error:

    Undefined private method 'compite_subtotal' called (line 18)

You may worry a little over the fact that we now can’t subclass the discount computation, but that’s likely not a good design anyway; for one, we’d need to also expose the list of items, breaking our aggregate boundary. If we do want pluggable discount mechanisms we’d probably be better implementing the strategy pattern.

Private methods can, of course, not be called from outside of the class, which is also a compile time error. First, if you try:

    say $order!compute_discount;

You’ll be informed:

    Private method call to 'compute_discount' must be fully qualified
    with the package containing the method

Which isn’t so surprising, given they are non-virtual. But even if we do:

    say $o!Order::compute_discount;

Our encapsulation-busting efforts just get us:

    Cannot call private method 'compute_discount' on package Order
    because it does not trust GLOBAL

This does, however, hint at the get-out clause for private methods: a class may choose to trust another one (or, indeed, any other package) to be able to call its private methods. Critically, this is the decision of the class itself; if the class declaration didn’t decide to trust you, you’re out of luck. Generally, you won’t need “trusts”, but occasionally you may be in a situation where you have two very closely coupled classes. That’s usually undesirable in itself, though. Don’t trust too readily. :-)

So, lexical classes, private methods and some nice compiler support to help catch mistakes. Have an agile advent. :-)

Grammar::Tracer and Grammar::Debugger

Grammars are, for many people, one of the most exciting features of Perl 6. They unify parsing with object orientation, with each production rule in your grammar being represented by a method. These methods are a little special: they are declared using the keywords “regex”, “rule” or “token”, each of which gives you different defaults on backtracking and whitespace handling. In common is that they lead to the body of the method being parsed using the Perl 6 rule syntax. Under the hood, however, they really are just methods, and production rules that refer to others are really just method calls.

Perl 6 grammars also give you a seamless way to combine declarative and imperative parsing. This means efficient mechanisms, such as NFAs and DFAs, may be used to handle the declarative parts – the things that your tokens tend to be made up of – while a more imperative mechanism drives the parsing of larger structures. This in turn means that you don’t need to write a tokenizer; it can be derived from the rules that you write in the grammar.

So what is the result of parsing some text with a grammar? Well, provided it’s able to match your input, you get back a parse tree. This data structure – made up of Match objects – captures the structure of the input. You can treat each Match node a little bit like a hash, indexing in to it to look at the values that its production rules matched. While you can build up your own tree or other data structure while parsing, sometimes the Match tree you get back by default will be convenient enough to extract the information you need.

That’s wonderful, but there was a key clause in all of this: “provided it’s able to match”. In the case that the grammar fails to match your input, then it tells you so – by giving back an empty Match object that, in boolean context, is false. It’s at this point that many people stop feeling the wonder of grammars and start feeling the pain of trying to figure out why on earth their seemingly fine grammar did not accept the input they gave it. Often, it’s something silly – but in a grammar of dozens of production rules – or sometimes even just ten – the place where things go wrong can be elusive.

Thankfully, help is now at hand, in the form of two modules: Grammar::Tracer, which gives you a tree-like trace output of your grammar, and Grammar::Debugger, which gives the same trace output but also enables you to set breakpoints and single step through the grammar.

A picture is worth a thousand words, so here’s how Grammar::Tracer looks in action!

What we’re seeing here is a tree representation of the production rules that were called, starting at “TOP”, next trying to parse a production rule called “country”, which in turn wants to parse a name, two “num”s and an “integer”. The green indicates a successful match, and next to it we see the snippet of text that was captured.

So what happens when things go wrong? In that case, we see something like this:

Here, we see that something happened during the parse that caused a cascade of failures all the way back up to the “TOP” production rule, which meant that the parse failed overall. Happily, though, we now have a really good clue where to look. Here is the text my grammar was trying to match at the time:

	Ulan Ude : 51.833333,107.600000 : 1
	Moscow : 55.75000,37.616667 : 4

Looking at this, we see that the “name” rule appears to have picked up “Ulan”, but actually the place in question is “Ulan Ude”. This leads us directly to the name production in our grammar:

token name { \w+ }

Just a smattering of regex fu is enough to spot the problem here: we don’t parse names that happen to have spaces in them. Happily, that’s an easy fix.

token name { \w+ [\h+ \w+]* }

So how do we turn on the tracing? Actually, that’s easy: just take the file containing the grammar you wish to trace, and add at the top:

use Grammar::Tracer;

And that’s it; now whenever you use the grammar, it will be traced. Note that this statement has lexical effect, so if you’re using modules that also happen to have grammars – which you likely don’t care about – they will not end up getting the tracing behavior.

You can also do this:

use Grammar::Debugger;

The debugger is the tracer’s big sister, and knows a few more tricks. Here’s an example of it in action.

Instead of getting the full trace, now as soon as we hit the TOP production rule the program execution breaks and we get a prompt. Pressing enter allows you to step rule by rule through the parse. For some people, this may be preferable; others prefer to get the full trace output and analyze it. However, there are a few more tricks. In the example above, I added a breakpoint on the “name” rule. Using “r” informs the debugger to keep running through the production rules until it hits one called “name”, at which point it breaks. It is also possible to add breakpoints in code, for more extended debugging sessions with many runs. There’s one additional feature in code, which is to set a conditional breakpoint.

Sound interesting? You can get modules from GitHub, and if you want to see a live demo of a grammar being debugged using it, then there is a video of my Debugging Perl 6 Grammars talk from YAPC::Europe 2011; slides are also available to make the sample code more clear than it is on the video. Note that the modules need one of the compiler releases from the Rakudo “nom” development branch; we’ll be making a distribution release later this month based on that, though, and these modules will come with it.

You may also be thinking: I bet these are complex modules doing lots of guts stuff! In fact, they are 44 lines (Grammar::Tracer) and 171 lines (Grammar::Debugger), and written in Perl 6. They are built using the meta-programming support we’ve been working on in the Rakudo Perl 6 compiler during the course of the last year – and if you want to know more about that, be sure to check out my meta-programming post coming up later on in this year’s advent calendar.

Day 18: Roles

As the snow falls outside, we grab a glass of mulled wine – or maybe a cup of eggnog – to enjoy as we explore today’s exciting gift – roles!

Traditionally in object oriented programming, classes have taken on two tasks: instance management and re-use. Unfortunately, this can end up pulling classes in two directions: re-use wants them to be small and minimal, but if they’re representing a complex entity then they need to support all of the bits it needs. In Perl 6, classes retain the task of instance management. Re-use falls to roles.

So what does a role look like? Imagine that we are building up a bunch of classes that represent different types of product. Some of them will have various bits of data and functionality in common. For example, we may have a BatteryPower role.

role BatteryPower {
    has $.battery-type;
    has $.batteries-included;
    method find-power-accessories() {
        return ProductSearch::find($.battery-type);

At first glance, this looks a lot like a class: it has attributes and methods. However, we can not use a role on its own. Instead, we must compose it into a class, using the does keyword.

class ElectricCar does BatteryPower {
    has $.manufacturer;
    has $.model;

Composition takes the attributes and methods – including generated accessors – from the role and copies them into the class. From that point on, it is as if the attributes and methods had been declared in the class itself. Unlike with inheritance, where the parents are looked at during method dispatch, with roles there is no runtime link beyond the class knowing to say “yes” if asked if it does a particular role.

Where things get really interesting is when we start to compose multiple roles into the class. Suppose that we have another role, SocketPower.

role SocketPower {
    has $.adapter-type;
    has $.min-voltage;
    has $.max-voltage; 
    method find-power-accessories() {
        return ProductSearch::find($.adapter-type);

Our laptop computer can be plugged in to the socket or battery powered, so we decide to compose in both roles.

class Laptop does BatteryPower does SocketPower {

We try to run this and…BOOM! Compile time fail! Unlike with inheritance and mix-ins, role composition puts all of the roles on a level playing field. If both provide a method of the same name – in this case, find-power-accessories – then the conflict will be detected as the class is being formed and you will be asked to resolve it. This can be done by supplying a method in our class that says what should be done.

class Laptop does BatteryPower does SocketPower {
    method find-power-accessories() {
        my $ss = $.adapter-type ~ ' OR ' ~ $.battery-type;
        return ProductSearch::find($ss);

This is perhaps the most typical use of roles, but not the only one. Roles can also be taken and mixed in to an object (on a per-object basis, not a per-class basis) using the does and but operators, and if filled only with stub methods will act like interfaces in Java and C#. I won’t talk any more about those in this post, though: instead, I want to show you how roles are also Perl 6’s way of achieving generic programming, or parametric polymorphism.

Roles can also take parameters, which may be types or just values. For example, we may have a role that we apply to products that need to having a delivery cost calculated. However, we want to be able to provide alternative shipping calculation models, so we take a class that can handle the delivery calculation as a parameter to the role.

role DeliveryCalculation[::Calculator] {
    has $.mass;
    has $.dimensions;
    method calculate($destination) {
        my $calc =
        return $$destination);

Here, the ::Calculator in the square brackets after the role name indicates that we want to capture a type object and associate it with the name Calculator within the body of the role. We can then use that type object to call .new on it. Supposing we had written classes that did shipping calculations, such as ByDimension and ByMass, we could then write:

class Furniture does DeliveryCalculation[ByDimension] {
class HeavyWater does DeliveryCalculation[ByMass] {

In fact, when you declare a role with parameters, what goes in the square brackets is just a signature, and when you use a role what goes in the square brackets is just an argument list. Therefore you have the full power of Perl 6 signatures at your disposal. On top of that, roles are “multi” by default, so you can declare multiple roles with the same short name, but taking different types or numbers of parameters.

As well as being able to parametrize roles using the square bracket syntax, it is also possible to use the of keyword if each role takes just one parameter. Therefore, with these declarations:

role Cup[::Contents] { }
role Glass[::Contents] { }
class EggNog { }
class MulledWine { }

We may now write the following:

my Cup of EggNog $mug = get_eggnog();
my Glass of MulledWine $glass = get_wine();

You can even stack these up.

role Tray[::ItemType] { }
my Tray of Glass of MulledWine $valuable;

The last of these is just a more readable way of saying Tray[Glass[MulledWine]]. Cheers!