530

I'm running ActiveState's 32 bit ActivePerl 5.14.2 on Windows 7. I wanted to mess around with a Git pre-commit hook to detect programs being checked in with syntax errors. (Somehow I just managed to do such a bad commit.) So as a test program I randomly jotted this:

use strict;
use warnings;

Syntax error!

exit 0;

However, it compiles and executes with no warnings, and errorlevel is zero on exit. How is this valid syntax?

5
  • 142
    Did you just prove that typing random words into perl produces working programs??!?!?!?! Commented Aug 10, 2012 at 19:16
  • 13
    @PeterM Hardly random words. I proved I don't know enough about Perl syntax. Now I know a bit more. Commented Aug 12, 2012 at 12:06
  • 11
    You probably want no indirect to stop those ones from happening Commented Mar 11, 2014 at 16:39
  • 3
    This is the most famous perl question ever. Even better as Schwartz's snippet: whatever / 25 ; # / ; die "this dies!"; Commented Mar 6, 2017 at 8:00
  • Written by linguist Larry Wall, Perl allows authors a lot of creative space. There is a sub-category in perl programming called Perl Poetry, valid Perl expressing stuff beyond computer interpretation: perlmonks.org/?node_id=1111395 Commented Jan 26, 2021 at 20:48

6 Answers 6

576

Perl has a syntax called "indirect method notation". It makes the following two lines equivalent:

new Foo $bar                 # Indirect

Foo->new( $bar )             # Direct

So that means the following two lines are equivalent:

Syntax error ! exit 0;       # Indirect

error->Syntax( ! exit 0 );   # Direct

Finally, let's cleanup the argument list.

error->Syntax( !exit( 0 ) );

Not only is it valid syntax, it doesn't result in a run-time error because the first thing executed is exit( 0 ).


This "feature" can be disabled using any of the following:

no feature qw( indirect );   # Perl 5.32+

use v5.36;                   # Perl 5.36+

Alternatively, you can get warnings using the following:

no indirect;                 # CPAN module
Sign up to request clarification or add additional context in comments.

10 Comments

@Hassan, Why? It's followed by an expression.
I got as far as reading it as "Syntax error !exit 0;", but I didn't think about indirect invocation. Spent a lot of time forgetting that!
@Hassan, Think of it this way, !exit(0) can no more be a type error than !$x since neither are typed.
@Hassan, The language has types. Specifically, values have types. Operators and subs are simply not confined to returning specific types of values. This turns out to be very useful at little cost (thanks to warnings).
@Nawaz, It's actually quite popular. It's used by everyone that constructs objects in Java and C++, and a large body of Perl programmers that uses new Class and print $fh ... instead of Class->new(...) and $fh->print(...). I will grant you that it causes a weird error messages, though
|
119

I don't know why, but this is what Perl makes of it:

perl -MO=Deparse -w yuck
BEGIN { $^W = 1; }
use warnings;
use strict 'refs';
'error'->Syntax(!exit(0));
yuck syntax OK

It seems that the parser thinks you're calling the method Syntax on the error-object... Strange indeed!

4 Comments

That's indirect method call syntax. It's (sort of) working here because the exit(0) is evaluated first, making the program exit before it tries to pass the result to 'error'->Syntax().
Perl seems to assume the "indirect (object) syntax", usually used like new Class instead of Class->new(). To call the method Syntax, the exit function is executed, so the run-time error never occures.
Congratulations. You found a program where you need to add a semi-colon in order do get the compile to fail.
use strict; use warnings; error->Syntax(! print "hi"); Yields: Syntax Ok on perl -MO=Deparse as well, but with use warnings it should probably say something since it can figure out that its not being loaded. Instead it throws a runtime error "Can't locate object method .. ".
59

The reason you do not get an error is that the first executed code is

exit(0);

Because you did not have a semicolon on the first line:

Syntax error!

The compiler will guess (incorrectly) that this is a subroutine call with a not operator ! thrown in. It will then execute the arguments to this subroutine, which happens to be exit(0), at which point the program exits and sets errorlevel to 0. Nothing else is executed, so no more runtime errors are reported.

You will notice that if you change exit(0) to something like print "Hello world!" you do get an error:

Can't locate object method "Syntax" via package "error" ...

and your error level will be set:

> echo %errorlevel%
255

6 Comments

>The compiler will guess (incorrectly) The compiler can't do anything incorrectly.
@LiamLaverty Yes, it can. It can guess incorrectly what the human meant.
The human is the incorrect one in the equation. The compiler can only be "correct" or "broken". It doesn't get an opinion on the definition of the language or a user's intention.
@LiamLaverty It would be a pretty neat compiler if it could guess the user's intention in this case, yes. Hence, the compiler cannot guess correctly. You might be doing some technical jargon analysis of my statement, which is, I might add, the incorrect way to read it.
Isn't it an interpretater? ;-)
|
36

As noted above this is caused by the indirect method calling notation. You can warn on this:

use strict;
use warnings;
no indirect;

Syntax error!

exit 0;

Produces:

Indirect call of method "Syntax" on object "error" at - line 5.

This requires the indirect CPAN module.

You can also use no indirect "fatal"; to cause the program to die (this is what I do)

1 Comment

From Perl 5.32 onwards you can disable indirect feature and you longer need to add a CPAN module: use v.5:32; no feature 'indirect';
7

Try Perl 6, it seems to fulfill your expectations more readily:

===SORRY!=== Error while compiling synerror.p6
Negation metaoperator not followed by valid infix
at synerror.p6:1
------> Syntax error!⏏<EOL>
    expecting any of:
        infix
        infix stopper

Comments

4

In this paper, we aim to answer a long-standing open problem in the programming languages community: is it possible to smear paint on the wall without creating valid Perl?

TLDR; Hardly

Comments

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.