Rewriting Perl Code for Raku IV: A New Hope

Back in Part III of our series on Raku programming, we talked about some of the basics of OO programming. This time we’ll talk about another aspect of OO programming. Perl objects can be made from any kind of reference, although the most common is a hash. I think Raku objects can do the same, but in this article we’ll just talk about hash-style Perl objects.

Raku objects let you superclass and subclass them, instantiate them, run methods on them, and store data in them. In previous articles we’ve talked about all but storing data. It’s time to remedy that, and talk about attributes.

Instance attributes

We used unit class OLE::Storage_Lite; to declare our class, and method save( $x, $y ) { ... } to create methods. Or in our case rewrite existing functions into methods. Now, we focus our attention on some of the variables that should really be instance attributes, and why.

Let’s get to know which variables behave like attributes, and which don’t. This will change how we write our Raku code, but hopefully for the better. We’ll start from the outside in, and look at the API. There are a few “test” scripts that use the module, and this fragment is pretty common.

use OLE::Storage_Lite;
my $oOl = OLE::Storage_Lite->new('test.xls');
my $oPps = $oOl->getPpsTree(1);
die( "test.xls must be a OLE file") unless($oPps);

The author creates an object ($oOl) from an existing file, then fetches a tree of “Pps” objects, whatever they are. So, one OLE::Storage_Lite object equals one file. This gives me my first instance variable, the filename.

sub new($$) {
  my($sClass, $sFile) = @_;
  my $oThis = {
    _FILE => $sFile,
  };
  bless $oThis;
  return $oThis;
}

Above is how they wrote it in Perl, and below is how we’d write it (exactly as specified) in Raku:

has $._FILE;

multi method new( $sFile ) {
  self.new( _FILE => $sFile );
}

Later on, we can call my $file = OLE:Storage_Lite.new( 'test.xls' ); just like we did in Perl. We wouldn’t even need the new method if we had users call my $file = OLE::Storage_Lite.new( _FILE => 'text.xls' );. This gives users the option of calling the API in the old Perl fashion or the new Raku fashion without additional work on our part.

Strict Raku-style

There’s a problem lurking here, though. The constructor Raku provides us lets us call my $file = OLE::Storage_Lite.new(); without specifying a value for $._FILE. If you know Perl’s Moose module, though, the ‘has’ there just might look familiar.

And for good reason. A lot of the ideas from Moose migrated into Raku during its design, and the attributes were one of those. Moose lets you do a lot of things with attributes, and so does Raku. One of those is you can add “adverbs” to them. Let’s do that now.

has $._FILE is required;

Calling OLE::Storage_Lite.new() now fails, because you’re not passing in the _FILE argument. That solves one problem. Actually, it solves two, come to think of it. In the original Perl code, you could call OLE:Storage_Lite->new() too, and it wouldn’t complain. Now we’ve fixed that, with one new term.

Progressive Typing

No, we’re not talking about some new editor like Comma (the link does work, despite the certificate problem.) Our code would run just fine, as-is. Users could call our .new() API, Raku would make sure the filename existed, and we could go on with translating.

But there’s something more we can take advantage of here, and that is the fact that any Raku object (and anything we can instantiate is an object) is a type as well. We haven’t mentioned that because we really couldn’t use that information until now.

The original Perl code is littered with clues to types, hidden in the variable names. When we wrote our own API call, the Perl code called the file name $sNm. The ‘s’ tells the Perl compiler nothing, but it tells us that $sNm is a String type. Perl may not have true types, but Raku does. Let’s fix our attribute with that in mind.

has Str $._FILE is required;

We knew all along that $._FILE is a string of some sort, but telling Raku that lets it allocate space more efficiently. Making sure it’s a required attribute lets anyone that calls new() know if they forget an argument. We could go a little farther with this, but locking down attributes will help in the long run, when we start dealing with the pack and unpack built-ins.

Packing It All In

We’re now getting to the heart of the module. There’s a lot of mechanics above us, allocating objects and doing math and checking types, and not much below us. The class’ entire purpose is to read and write OLE-formatted files. We’ll talk more about the boilerplate, but here’s the real meat of the file.

Let’s start with what should be simple, reading in data. Just like in Perl, we open a file and get back a “file handle” (assuming the file exists, of course.) By default, calling my $fh = open $._FILE; gives us a read-only file handle. The file handle itself has a bunch of attributes associated with it, but the important one right now is its encoding.

Namely, the fact that it has none. An OLE file is essentially a miniature filesystem (probably based on FAT) packed onto disk, complete with a root directory, subdirectories and files. File have names encoded in UCS-2, but the rest is entirely dependent upon what the application requires.

The upshot of which is that we can’t read the format with something simple like my @lines = $fh.lines; which would read line after line into the @lines array. Instead we’ll use calls like read() and write() that return byte-oriented buffers.

Buffering…

All OLE files start off with the header “\xD0\xCF\x11\xE0\xA1\xB1\x1A\xE1”, so we should probably start there. That’s important twice in the code, in fact. First, when we’re reading off disk, we can check it against what we’ve just read to make sure this file is OLE, and not, say, a JSON file. Later on, when we’re saving out an OLE file, we can write it as the header string.

constant HEADER-ID = "\xD0\xCF\x11\xE0\xA1\xB1\x1A\xE1";

I’ll make it a constant as well, so when I revisit this code in a month I don’t have to go looking in specs for ‘0xd0 0xcf’ to remember what this is. Reading is straight-forward too. It needs just a byte count.

my Buf $header = $fh.read( 8 );

Something important to notice here is the type, ‘Buf’. If our file was in Markdown, or JSON we could get away with just writing my @lines = $fh.lines; like I tried earlier. But these are raw bytes, hindered by no interpretation. Let’s see what happens when we compare these bytes to our HEADER-ID.

t/01-internals.t ............ Cannot use a Buf as a string, but you called the Stringy method on it
  in method _getHeaderInfo at /home/jgoff/GitHub/drforr/raku-OLE-Storage_Lite/lib/OLE/Storage_Lite.pm6 (OLE::Storage_Lite) line 169
  in block <unit> at t/01-internals.t line 42

Another brick in the wall

Ka-blam. But… hold the phone here a minute, I just said $header eq HEADER-ID, I didn’t write anything like ‘Stringy’! There’s no ‘Stringy’ in the source… oh. HEADER-ID is a string, so Raku is being helpful. I’m trying to use string comparison (‘eq’) between something that’s not a Str ( $header ) and something that is (HEADER-ID).

Pull up the Stringy documentation, and look for the Type graph. Midway down you’ll see ‘Buf’ and ‘Str’, as of this writing Buf is on the left, and Str is popular so it’s in the middle.

Trace the inheritance paths from Buf and Str upwards, and you’ll see they pass Buf -> Blob -> Stringy and Str -> Stringy, and stop. What the error message therefore is saying is this, anthropomorphized:

You wanted to convert Buf to Str, and didn’t care how you did it. So I looked. First, on the Buf type. No .Str method there, at least without arguments. No good. So I looked in its parent, Blob. Nothing doing there. Then I looked at Stringy, and couldn’t find anything else.

There’s nothing above me, nothing below. So I’ll let you know I looked for a conversion method in a bunch of places, stopped at Stringy, and couldn’t go any farther. Sorry.

Raku

You’re probably wondering how to get out of this quandary. Reading the Blob documentation closely, you might think that the encode method is the way out of our present jam. If you look closer, though, there’s a spanner in the works. “\xD0” is the byte 0xd0, so if you try to decode to ASCII, you run into the problem that ASCII only covers 0x00-07xf, everything outside of that is undefined.

Packing for vacation

If you’ve kept up with things, you might surmise by now that the key to our quandary lies in the pack and unpack builtins. Specifically unpack(), because we’re trying to “decode” a buffer into something suitable for Raku.

Unless you’ve done things like network programming or security, the pack and unpack builtins are going to be unfamiliar territory. The closest analogue of pack() is the builtin sprintf().

Both of these builtins take a format string telling the compiler how to arrange its arguments. Both of them take a mixture of string and integer arguments afterwards. But while sprintf() takes the arguments and treats its output as a UTF-8 encoded string, pack() takes the same arguments and treats its output as a raw buffer of bytes.

And now you can see one way out of our little predicament. If we could just find the right invocation, pack() would be able to take our string “\xd0\xcf…” and turn it into a Buf object. Then we could compare the buffer we got by reading 8 bytes to the buffer we expected.

So instead of cluttering up the main code, let’s write a quick test.

use experimental :pack;
constant HEADER-ID = "\xD0\xCF\x11\xE0\xA1\xB1\x1A\xE1";

use Test;
my $fh = open "test.xls";
my Buf $buf = $fh.read( 8 );

is $buf, pack( "A8", HEADER-ID ); # Pack 8 ASCII characters

Testing…testing…

Let’s take it from the top. We tell Raku to use the “experimental” pack() builtin, and declare the header we want to check against. Then we tell Raku we want to use the Test module, and open a new Microsoft Excel test file.

Last, we read a chunk of 8 bytes from the file into a buffer, and check to see that the 8 bytes matches the header we expect to see. Now, how did we get that weird ‘A8’ string in there? I thought pack() looked more like sprintf()?

Well, it does, to an extent. I/O routines like sscanf() and sprintf() can do all sorts of things to your strings and numbers on the way in and out, think for example what ‘%-2.10f’ means in a format specifier, for instance. You can follow along with the unpack() documentation if you like.

pack(), by contrast, just takes 8, 16, or 32-bit chunks of your input, and places them into a buffer. The “A” in “A8” says that it wants to convert an ASCII-sized chunk of your input (“\xd0” in our case) into a byte in the buffer, so our Buf now looks like ( 0xd0 ).

I could just as well have said “AAAAAAAA” in order to translate all 8 characters of the buffer, but I think it’s a little tidier to use the ‘repeat’ option, and say “A8” in order to convert just 8 characters (yes, yes, I know, they’re glyphs, but let’s not confuse matters.)

I could write “A*” just as well, but “A8” makes sure that 8 and only 8 (the number that thou shalt count to…) characters get converted. I doubt that the header in an OLE file will change, but it’s a nice bit of forward planning.


For those of you that made it this far, thank you. As usual, gentle Reader, if you have any comments, criticisms (constructive, please) or questions, feel free to post them below.

Next week I’ll delve deeper into the mysteries of pack(), unpack() and some of the tips and tricks I use to keep on my toes and make sure that I generate clean Microsoft-compatible output.

Rewriting Perl Code for Raku III: The Sorceror

Last week, we started testing, learned how to create proper Raku classes, and the basics of functions. This time we’ll take a closer look at functions, arguments, and make some decisions about the API. And maybe while writing this I’ll argue myself out of a decision. It’s happened before.

One good thing about writing about a module is that you can slip into a certain mindset. For instance, right now I’m thinking a few paragraphs ahead, wondering how to explain why I changed the API from Perl 5 references to regular Raku types.

It’s at odds with some of the principles I laid down at the start, which states that I should have minimal changes in the API from Perl to Raku. In Perl 5, you would create the “filesystem root” object like so:

my $root = OLE::Storage_Lite::PPS::Root->new(
  [ 0, 0, 0, 25, 1, 100 ],
  [ 0, 0, 0, 25, 1, 100 ],
  [ $workbook, $page_1, $sheet_1 ]
);

with a bunch of references to lists. By all rights, and the principles I set up earlier, the Raku equivalent should be almost exactly the same:

my $root = OLE::Storage_Lite::PPS::Root.new(
  [ 0, 0, 0, 25, 1, 100 ],
  [ 0, 0, 0, 25, 1, 100 ],
  [ $workbook, $page_1, $sheet_1 ]
);

In fact, all I did was copy and change two characters, specifically the Perl ‘->’ to the Raku ‘.’ operator. Clean, and very simple. And I think what I’ll do is actually just change the code back to using the Perl reference, at least in the API. Dereferencing it will be just a few lines, and I’ll have to change it in the tests as well, but I think the pain will be worthwhile.

This way I don’t have to field questions like “Why did you end up potentially breaking old code?” during talks. See, speaking at conferences about your code really can be a useful motivator!

I’d like a formal argument, please

So, I think I’ve settled on Perl-style formal references, at least for the current iteration. There are actually better ways to do this, but I’ll leave that for the proper Raku version. For right now, quick-n-dirty is the name of the game.

Moving on, we see an important method in the original Perl code, saving an object to disk.

sub save($$;$$) {
  my($oThis, $sFile, $bNoAs, $rhInfo) = @_;
  #0.Initial Setting for saving
  $rhInfo = {} unless($rhInfo);
  # ..
}

As I’ve mentioned before, OLE::Storage_Lite has been around for a long, long time. And it’s obvious here. Function prototypes (not signatures, which are a different kettle of fish) and the use of ‘$oThis’ instead of the more conventional ‘$self’.

Being prototypical

Prototypes were originally meant as a way to save you from having to write checks in your code. Theoretically, if your function was called sub save($$) and you tried to call it with save($fh) you would get an error, because the ‘$$’ means the subroutine took two arguments, and you gave it just one.

But it also predated objects (yes, Virginia, objects in Perl haven’t been around all that long.) and they could have unforeseen side effects. So they were a fad for a while, but quickly faded out of existence.

These days they’re a reason for a more experienced Perl hacker to take the junior aside and explain quietly why we don’t use those anymore, and point them to some modern references, like Modern Perl (not an affiliate link, yet.)

Let’s at least partially convert that to Raku, like so:

method save($sFile, $bNoAs, $rhInfo) {
  #0.Initial Setting for saving
  $rhInfo = {} unless($rhInfo);
  # ..
}

The ‘$oThis’ means that this is a method call, so instead of writing sub save( $oThis, ... ) we can rewrite it to a method and gain ‘self’ instead of the arbitrary variable ‘$oThis’. Of course we do have to do a search-and-replace on ‘$oThis’ with ‘self’, but that’s relatively simple. More complex is what to do with the ‘;’ in the original prototype.

Having options

It’s worth pointing out that OLE::Storage_Lite is taken at least in part from another (larger) module, OLE::Storage. This means that the internal code is redundant in a few places. Raku would let us rewrite what we have as:

method save($sFile, $bNoAs, $rhInfo = {}) {
  #0.Initial Setting for saving
  # ..
}

making $rhInfo an optional variable with a default value. Now, this is a pretty common pattern for a recursive method, so I did a bit of digging. Namely I grep’ed for ‘save’ in the original (all-in-one) Storage_Lite.pm module, and found no recursive calls to it.

Debugging both sides now

This is also where the test suite I wrote earlier comes in handy, as it actually exercises the ‘save’ method. So I added a quick debugging message warn "Saving $rhInfo"; to my local copy of the code, and ran the test suite. Seeing just one ‘Saving …’ message in my test output convinced me it wasn’t recursive. So now the code just looks like:

method save($sFile, $bNoAs) {
  #0.Initial Setting for saving
  my %hInfo;
  # ..
}

Also, since $rhInfo is created in this method, there’s no reason to leave it as a reference. So the initial ‘r’ goes away, and we have left just ‘%hInfo’. It may get passed in to other methods, but Raku lets us pass hashes and arrays as ordinary variable types, so I’ll take advantage of that.

To be fair, leaving it as a reference would have saved me a bit of typing, but I’d already kind of decided that at least internally I’d try to use Raku types and calling conventions, and that left me with the choice of how to pass variables around.

Having options

Finally, there’s the question of what to do with the semicolon. Remember at the start, the function prototype was ‘($$;$$)’ which meant $oThis and $sFile were before the semicolon, and $bData and $rhInfo were after. I can now reveal that ‘;’ in a Perl prototype means that whatever appears afterward is optional.

True to Raku’s nature, I can account for this in at least two ways. One way would be to decide that $bData is always there and just has a default value, probably 0. That would look like method save( $sFile, $bData = 0 ). But the documentation puts $bData in square brackets, indicating that it’s optional.

Raku has an alternate syntax to indicate if a variable is optional, which looks like method save( $sFile, $bData? ). I think this method is better than the alternative syntax because it states clearly that $bData is optional. Both methods work, I just happen to like the ‘?’ modifier.

Waiting for Huffman

Moving on, we have this wonderful line of code:

$rhInfo->{_BIG_BLOCK_SIZE}  = 2**
              (($rhInfo->{_BIG_BLOCK_SIZE})?
                  _adjust2($rhInfo->{_BIG_BLOCK_SIZE})  : 9);

When I was translating this initially, I was in something of a drone mindset, not truly thinking about what I was doing. I’d copied the $rhInfo variable into the method signature and just kept on writing. I ended up with a statement that I eventually shortened quite a bit.

$rhInfo.<_BIG_BLOCK_SIZE> = 2**
  ( $rhInfo.<_BIG_BLOCK_SIZE> ??
    _adjust2( $rhInfo.<_BIG_BLOCK_SIZE> ) !!
                                        9 );

The ‘.’ after $rhInfo indicates we’re dealing with a reference, and the <..> notation is now how barewords look inside hashes. The old {_BIG_BLOCK_SIZE} is still there, but it’s pronounced {‘_BIG_BLOCK_SIZE’}. A lot of people use the {‘..’} in Perl already so it’s not a big change, and it actually simplifies the backend enormously.

Also, at the start Larry and Damian pulled statistics on Perl code from CPAN and other repositories. They were looking for operator frequencies, among other things. Frequently used operators like qw() and -> got even shorter in Raku.

Others, like the ternary operator, weren’t so lucky. It got longer, and stretched to ‘?? .. !!’. So this is one place where the code will look a little funky. Maybe one day I’ll write a slang to fix it, but back to work.

Trimming the verge

Earlier I mentioned that this module was trimmed down from a much larger full OLE reader/writer. This was the first place that became evident. Since $rhInfo is now called %hInfo and initialized inside the method, this statement deserves to be looked at a little closer.

my %hInfo;
%hInfo<_BIG_BLOCK_SIZE> = 2**
  ( %hInfo<_BIG_BLOCK_SIZE> ??
    _adjust2( %hInfo<_BIG_BLOCK_SIZE> ) !!
                                        9 );

After replacing $rhInfo with %hInfo this is what I got. But since %hInfo is defined just above, the test %hInfo<_BIG_BLOCK_SIZE> will never be true, so this entire block can be reduced to:

my %hInfo = _BIG_BLOCK_SIZE => 2**9;

While I’m here I’ll delete _adjust2(). No code pathway uses it, so out it goes. I’ll restore it if I have to, but right now I want the test scripts to pass, and that’s it. I’ve got the original source, and a map from Perl to Raku, and that’s all I need.

Culling yaks from the herd

Where there’s smoke there’s fire, so I stop what I’m doing and grep out every ‘sub X’ call in the source, putting it in a scratch monkey. Then I go through the source (which I have below the new Raku source, deleting lines as I go) and look for methods that aren’t used, like adjust2(). I delete each of these methods with extreme prejudice, because each line of code I don’t see is one I don’t have to translate.

Checkpoint in git, and now it’s time for a lunch break. Afterwards, I’m getting into the save() method, and see what looks like a new yak to shave. Or a package to translate, to be precise.

  if(ref($sFile) eq 'SCALAR') {
    require IO::Scalar;
    my $oIo = new IO::Scalar $sFile, O_WRONLY;
    $rhInfo->{_FILEH_} = $oIo;
    # ...
}

In both Raku and Perl, you can create a single method called new( $sFile ) that treats $sFile as either a filename (scalar), file content (scalar reference) or file handle (scalar object.) In Perl, if we wanted to handle filenames, file contents, or file handles differently, we’d have to switch like this, or have different method names.

In Raku, we can handle this differently. In fact I can write the code to save() to a filename, and add save() to a filehandle later with no modifications needed. Above, I briefly touched on the fact that you can write more than one new() method, as long as the two method signatures were distinct.

multi method save( Str $filename ) {...}
multi method save( IO::Handle $fh ) {...}

Raku will let you write two methods called save(), as long as it can tell which one to call at runtime. So, I can call $root.save( '/tmp/test.xlsx' ); or $root.save( $out_filehandle ); and Raku will “dispatch” it to the right save() method automatically.

We call it ‘multiple dispatch’ for just that reason, dispatching a function call to multiple versions of a method. And this means that I can write the first save( Str $filename ) method without worrying about the other methods. I don’t have to add a new if-then branch to the existing code, or modify save() in any way.

I can just write my save() method and ignore the other IO:: types. Also, if someone gets my code later and wants to add a save() method that saves to something I know nothing about, they can write their new save() method without interfering with mine.

In this installment we’ve covered the basics of function and method calls, delved into the ternary operator, removed dead code and learned a little about multiple dispatch. Next time, we’ll open the binary filehandle we created above and delve into the mysteries of pack() and unpack().

I’ll also show you a new (yes, I couldn’t resist) grammar-based version of pack() that should cover the entire Perl gamut of packed types, with a bit of patience and a large enough test suite.

As always, gentle Reader, thank you for your time and attention. If you have any (constructive, please) comments, criticisms or questions, please let me know in the comment section below.

Rewriting Perl Code for Raku II: Electric Boogaloo

Picking up from Part One, we’d just finished up rewriting a Perl script into the test suite for the Raku translation of OLE::Storage_Lite. Raku programming is made easier by having lots of tools, but Microsoft documents aren’t yet well-represented in the Raku ecosystem.

Being able to read/write OLE allows us to create a whole range of Microsoft documents (at least where they’re documented.) Because of its day-to-day use, we’re focusing on Excel here. Many businesses still rely on Excel for their day-to-day task management, time tracking and home-grown processes.

I’ve been known to wax philosophical about this after a few Westmalle Tripels at various conferences. Now is the time for doing something about it. Here’s what our burgeoning test suite looked like, at least in part. The current code is in raku-OLE-Storage_Lite over on github.com. I’ve gotten rid of most of the Perl 5 test skeleton, but the essence remains.

use v6;
use Test;
use OLE::Storage_Lite;

plan 1;

my $oDt = OLE::Storage_Lite::PPS::Root.new(
  (),
  ( 0, 0, 16, 4, 10, 100 ), # 2000/11/4 16:00:00:0000
  ( $oWk, $oDir )
);
subtest 'Root', {
  isa-ok $oDt, 'OLE::Storage_Lite::PPS::Root';
  is $oDt.Name, 'Root Entry';
  is-deeply $oDt.Time2nd, [ 0, 0, 16, 4, 10, 100 ];
  # ...
};
done-testing;

Originally there really weren’t any Perl 5 tests for this module. I’m sure the original author treated the entire module as a black box, and they were happy to be able to run samples/smpsv.pl, open the new test.xls in Excel, and when it actually read the file, treat that as ‘ok 1’, push it to CPAN and call it a day.

Testing, testing

That’s wonderful, and I may eventually adopt that methodology. For the moment, the lack of a test suite leaves me a bit unsatisfied. I suppose I could treat the entire module as a black box and fix the translated version line-by-line as I go through it. I’ll have to do that eventually (spoiler alert: That’s actually where I am – I’m writing these pieces a bit after the fact.)

That leaves me with the question of what to test, and what the quickest way to get there is. The individual Directory, Root and File objects are exposed to the user, and are part of the public API. So it makes some sense to create an object, look at the internals, and do my best to match that in Raku.

I Think I’m A Clone Now

There’s always two [implementations] of me standing around… I don’t want to get sidetracked by reading the entire OLE spec. I might start to realize what a huge job this really is, and abandon ship. So, I’m going to limit myself to the following:

Create a narrowly defined 1:1 clone of the exact source of OLE::Storage_Lite in Perl 5. The objects will act exactly like the Perl 5 version, as will the API. This way I don’t have to think about what the API should do, how it should look in Raku, how the objects get laid out, anything fancy. All I need to worry about is:

  1. When I write warn $oDt.raku, does the output look the same as use YAML; warn Dump($oDt); in Perl 5?
  2. When I write the final file to disk, does the Raku code output exactly the same file as the original Perl 5 version?

That’s it. It takes away a lot of possibilities, but it lets me focus on getting the job done, not how things should look. Being able to test how the individual objects look will tell me that the read API works and saves enough data to be able to reconstruct the object in memory.

Conversely, being able to match the binary output tells me that the write API works, so I’ve effectively tested as much as the original module did. Plus I can automate some of the process, especially on the read side.

Lost in Translation

You can check out the current source at raku-OLE-Storage_Lite, and follow along with some of the changes I’ve made. I also made sure to keep a working copy of the original OLE::Storage_Lite Perl 5 module around. My Raku tree right now is very close to Perl 5.

I can insert a debug statement like die "[$iBlockNo] [$sData]\n" in the Perl 5 code, go to the equivalent line in Raku, and expect that when I run the two test suites, that they’ll die in exactly the same way.

This way when they don’t, I can immediately narrow down the problem simply by moving the ‘die’ statements up in the code until they return the same values. The line immediately below the ‘die’ statement will be the culprit.

The Nitty Gritty Perl Band

I’ll mention one thing in passing – the original Perl 5 source code is in a single file containing all of the packages. That’s not Raku style, so I’ve unpacked it into lib/OLE/Storage_Lite/* following the usual style of one Perl 5 class – one file.

So, time to get our hands dirty. The new Raku module won’t compile for quite a while, so we’d better put this into git. I’m also using App::Mi6 to do my development and eventual push to CPAN, so all of that boilerplate is there too.

So, cue the montage scene of the dedicated Raku hacker pounding away at the keyboard, with the occasional break for food and/or adult beverage. Looking over her shoulder, we see a familiar split-screen view, with Perl 5 code on top, and a new Raku file below.

use OLE::Storage_Lite::PPS;
package OLE::Storage_Lite::PPS::Root;
use vars qw($VERSION @ISA);
@ISA = qw(OLE::Storage_Lite::PPS);
use OLE::Storage_Lite::PPS;
unit class OLE::Storage_Lite::PPS::Root is OLE::Storage_Lite::PPS;

Raku has classes where Perl 5 has packages. The ‘unit’ declaration there says that the class declaration takes up the remainder of the file. This is sort of how Perl 5 does it, but gets rid of the ‘1;’ at the end of your package declaration.

It’s also useful for another reason I’m not going to show. Namely that the Perl 5 code is directly below the Raku code, commented out. I’m flipping between vim windows to delete lines as I translate them by hand. So the ‘unit class’ declaration helps in case I accidentally un-comment Perl 5 code – I’ll get big honkin’ warnings when I run the test suite.

Moosey-ears!

(for those of you that remember the module’s release)

Raku borrowed liberally from Perl 5’s Moose OO metamodel, to the point where using Raku will feel very similar. Just drop a few bits of syntactic sugar that Moose needed to work under Perl, and it’ll feel the same.

In this case the ‘is’ does the same job as in Moose, to introduce a parent class. Raku doesn’t need the sugar that Moose sweetens your code with, so you can just say your class ‘is’ a subclass of any other class.

Let’s keep rolling along here, with the next lines of the Perl 5 library:

require Exporter;
use strict;
use IO::File;
use IO::Handle;
use Fcntl;
use vars qw($VERSION @ISA);
@ISA = qw(OLE::Storage_Lite::PPS Exporter);
$VERSION = '0.19';
sub _savePpsSetPnt($$$);
sub _savePpsSetPnt2($$$);
use OLE::Storage_Lite::PPS;
unit class OLE::Storage_Lite::PPS::Root:ver<0.19> is OLE::Storage_Lite::PPS;

Moving along… Okay, ya caught me, ‘:ver<0.19>’ is something new that we should add. Versions are now integrated into classes, so you can check them and even instantiate based on version number.

The module actually doesn’t export anything, so we don’t need Exporter at all. Raku enables ‘strict’ automatically, has IO modules in core, and doesn”t need Fcntl. The forward declarations aren’t needed for Raku, so all that’s left is the module’s version number, which gets added to the class name. You can add other attributes, too.

Making things functional

To keep things simple for me writing the code, and me having to read the code weeks, months or years later, I want as close to a 1:1 relation between Perl 5 and Raku as I can. Another place where this requires an accommodation (but not much of one) is just a few lines down, writing the creation method ‘new’.

sub new ($;$$$) {
    my($sClass, $raTime1st, $raTime2nd, $raChild) = @_;
    OLE::Storage_Lite::PPS::_new(
        $sClass,
        undef,
        # ...
    );
}

By this point you’ll probably see more of why I say this module is a hard worker. It’s been around a long time, and function prototypes like this are one easy way to tell. Let’s rewrite it in a more modern Perl 5 style before making the jump to Raku, with function signatures.

sub new($sClass, $raTime1st, $raTime2nd, $raChild) {
    OLE::Storage_Lite::PPS::_new(
        $sClass,
        undef,
        # ...
    )
}

Just drop the old function prototype, and replace it with the variables we need to populate. Well, almost. If you know what a subroutine prototype is, you might think I’m pulling a fast one on you. And you’d be right. Look back at the original Perl 5 code, and you’ll see ‘($;$$$)’ is the prototype.

The ‘;’ separates required variables from optional variables, and we haven’t accounted for that in our Perl 5 code. Since I’m not here to modernize Perl 5 code but convert it to Raku, I’m going to ignore that in Perl 5 and go straight to Raku.

multi method new( @aTime1st?, @aTime2nd?, @aChild? ) {
  self.bless(
    Time1st => @aTime1st,
    Time2nd => @aTime2nd,
    Child => @aChild
  );
}

Under Construction

And there we are. Now, there’s quite a bit to take in, so I’ll take things slow. The first thing you’ll notice is the keyword ‘multi’. In Perl 5, you get to hand-roll your own constructors, so you can make them any way you like. In this case, the author chose to write new($raTime1st, $raTime2nd, $raChild), which is pretty common.

Raku gives me a default ‘new’ method, so I only need to hand-roll constructors when I want. Since I want to keep as close as reasonable to the original API, I’ll write a constructor that takes 3 arguments too. In my case I chose to simplify things just a bit here.

I’ve found over several years of writing Raku code that I rarely use references. In Perl 5 they were pretty much the only way to pass arrays or hashes into a function, because of its propensity to “flatten” arguments.

In Raku, you can still use the Perl 5 style, but formal argument lists are the way to go in my opinion. If you need to pass both an array and a hash to a Raku function, go for it. I encourage that in my tutorial courses, and recommend it to help break students out of their Perl 5 mindset.

This is not to say that there’s anything wrong with Perl 5’s argument list, in fact they’ve taken some ideas from Raku for formal argument lists, and I encourage that. Cross-pollination of ideas should be encouraged, it’s how both languages grow and add new features.

Last week was about the overall module, this week we delved a bit into the OO workings. Next week we’ll talk about references, attributes, and maybe progressive typing.

Templates and a Clean Start

Before I get into the meat of the topic, which will eventually lead to a self-modifying grammar (yes, you heard me, self-modifying…) I have a confession to make, in that a series of articles on the old site may have led people astray. I wrote that series thinking to make parsing things where no grammar existed easier.

It may have backfired. So, as a penance, I’m simultaneously pointing theperlfisher.{com,net} to this new site, and starting a new series of articles on Raku programming with a different approach. This time I’ll be incorporating more of my thoughts and what hopefully will be a different approach.

Begin as you mean to go on.

I would love to dump the CMS I’m currently using for something written in Raku. Among the many challenges that presents is displaying HTML, and to paraphrase Clint Eastwood, I do know my limitations. So, I don’t want to write HTML. Ideally, not ever.

So, that means steal borrowing HTML from other sites and making it my own. Since those are usually Perl 5 sites, that means dealing with Template Toolkit. And already I can hear some of you screaming “Raku already handles everything TT used to! Just use interpolated here-docs!”

And, for the most part, you’re absolutely correct. Instead of the clunky ‘[% variable_name %]’ notation you can use clean inline interpolation with ‘{$variable-name}’, and being able to insert blocks of code inline means you don’t have to go through many of the hoops that you’re required to jump through with Template Toolkit.

That’s all absolutely true, and I hope to be able to use all of those features and more in the final CMS, whatever that happens to be. This approach ignores the fact that most HTML out there is written with Template Toolkit, and that rewriting HTML, even if it’s just a few tiny tags, is an investment of time that could be better done elsewhere.

If only there were Template Toolkit for Raku…

Let’s dive in!

If you’re not familiar with Template Toolkit, it’s a fairly lightweight programming language for writing HTML templates, among others. Please don’t confuse it with a markup language, designed to be rendered into HTML. This is a language that lets you combine your own code with a template and generate dynamic displays.

<h1>Hello, [% name %]!</h1>

That is a simple bit of Template Toolkit. Doesn’t look like much, does it? It’s obviously a fragment of a proper HTML document because there’s no ‘<html>’..'</html>’ bracketing it, and obviously whatever’s between ‘[%’ and ‘%]’ is being treated specially. In this case, it’s being rendered by an engine that fills in the name, maybe something like…

$tt.render( 'hello.tt', :name( 'Jeff' ) );

where hello.tt is the name of the template file containing the previous code, and ‘Jeff’ is the name we want to substitute. We’ve got a lot of work to go through before we can get there, though. If you’ve read previous articles of mine on the subject, please try to ignore what I’ve said there.

Off the Deep End

First things first, we need a package to work in. For this, I generally rely on App::Mi6 to do the hard work for me. Start by installing the package with zef, and then we’ll get down to business. (It should be installed by default, if you’re still using rakudobrew please don’t.)

$ zef install App::Mi6
{a bit of noise}
$ mi6 new Template::Toolkit
Successfully created Template-Toolkit
$ cd Template-Toolkit

Ultimately, we want this test (in t/01-basic.t – go ahead and add it) to pass:

use Test;
use Template::Toolkit;
my $tt = Template::Toolkit.new;
is $tt.render( 'hello.tt', :name( 'Jeff' ) ), '<h1>Hello, Jeff!</h1>';

It’ll fail (and miserably, at that) but at least it’ll give us a goal. Also it should give us an idea of how others will use our API. Let’s think about that for a few moments, just to make sure we’re not painting ourselves into any obvious corners.

In order to be useful, our module has to parse Perl 5 Template Toolkit files, and process them in a way that’s useful in Raku. Certain things will go by the wayside, to be sure, but the core will be a module that lets us load, maybe compile, and fill in a template.

Hrm, I just said ‘fill in’ rather than ‘render’, what I said above. Should I change the method name? No, not really, the new module will still do what the Perl 5 code used to, it just won’t do it using Perl 5, so some of the old conventions won’t work. Let’s leave that decision for now, and go on.

Retrograde is all the rage

Let’s apply some basic retrograde logic to what we’ve got here, given what we know of Raku tools. In order to get the string ‘<h1>Hello, Jeff!</h1>’ from ‘<h1>Hello, [% name %]!</h1>’, we need a lot of mechanics at work.

At first glance, it seems pretty obvious that ‘[% name %]’ is a substitution marker, so let’s just do a quick regexp like this:

$text ~~ s:g{ '[%' (\w+) '%]' } = %args{$0};

That should replace every marker in the text with something from an %arguments hash that render() supplies to us. End of column, end of story. But not so fast, if all Template Toolkit supplied to us was the ability to substitute values for keys, then … there’s really no need for the module. And in fact, if you look at the docs, it can do many more things for us.

For example, ‘[% INCLUDE %]’ lets us include other template files in our own, ‘[% IF %]’ .. ‘[% END %]’ lets us do things conditionally, and a whole host of other “directives” are available. But you’ll see here the one thing they have in common is they all start with ‘[%’ and end with ‘%]’.

Hold the phone

That isn’t entirely true, and in fact there’s going to be another article in the series about that. But it’s a good starting point. We may not know much about what the language itself looks like, but I can tell you that tags are balanced, not nested, and every ‘[%’ opening tag has a ‘%]’ tag that closes it.

I’ll also point out that directives ( ‘[% foo %]’ ) can occur one after another without any intervening white space, and may not occur at all. So already some special cases are starting to creep in.

In fact, let’s put this in as a separate test file entirely. So separate that we’re going to put it in a nested directory, in fact. Let’s open t/parser/01-basic.t and add this set of tests:

use Test;
use Template::Toolkit::Parser;

my $p = Template::Toolkit::Parser.new;

0000, AAAA
0001, AAAB
0010, AABA
0011, AABB
0100, ABAA
0101, ABAB
... # and so on up to
1110, BBBA
1111, BBBB

Now just HOLD THE PHONE here… we’re testing directives for Template Toolkit, not binary numbers, and whatever that other column is! Well, that’s true. We want to test text and directives, and make sure that we can get back text when we want it, and directives when we want them.

At first blush you might think it’s just enough to make sure that ‘<h1> Hello,’ is parsed as text, and that ‘[% name %]’ is parsed as a directive, and just leave it at that. But those of you that have worked with regular expressions for a while might wonder how ‘[% name %][% other %]’ gets parsed… does it end at the first ‘%]’, or continue on to the next one?

And what about text mixed with directives? Leading? Trailing text? Wow, a lot of combinations. In fact, if you wanted to be thorough, it wouldn’t hurt to cover all possible combinations of text and directives up to… say, 4 in a row.

Let’s call text ‘T’, and directives ‘D’. I’ve got 4 slots, and only two choices for each. Filling the first slot gives me ‘T_ _ _’ and ‘D_ _ _’, for two choices. I can fill the next slot with ‘T T _ _’, ‘T D _ _’, ‘D T _ _’, and ‘D D _ _’, and I think you can see where we’re going with this.

In fact, replace T with 0 and D with 1, and you’ve got the binary numbers from 0000 to 1111. So, let’s take advantage of this fact, and do some clever editing in our editor of choice:

0010, 0010                            =>
is-deeply the-tree( '0010, AABA       =>
is-deeply the-tree( '0010' ), [ AABA  =>
is-deeply the-tree( '0010' ), [ AABA ];

A few quick search-and-replace commands should get you from the first line to the last line. Now it’s looking more like a Raku test, right? We’re not quite there yet, ‘0010’ still doesn’t look like a string of text and directives, and what’s this AABA thing? One more search-and-replace pass, this time global, should solve that.

is-deeply the-tree( '0010' ), [ AABA ]; =>
is-deeply the-tree( 'xx1x' ), [ AABA ]; =>
is-deeply the-tree( 'xx[% name %]x' ), [ AABA ]; =>
is-deeply the-tree( 'xx[% name %]x' ), [ 'a', 'a', B'a', ]; =>
is-deeply the-tree( 'xx[% name %]x' ),
          [ 'a', 'a', B'a', ]; =>
is-deeply the-tree( 'xx[% name %]x' ),
    [ 'a', 'a', Directive.new( :content( 'name' ) ), 'a', ];

Starting out with the padded binary numbers covers every combination of text and directive possible (at least 4 long). A clever bit of search-and-replace in your favorite editor gives us a working set of test cases that check a set of “real-world” strings, and a file you can almost run. Next time we’ll fill in the details, and get from zero to a minimal (albeit working) Template Toolkit implementation.

As always, dear reader, feel free to post whatever comments, questions, and/or suggestions that you may have, including ideas for future articles. I read and respond to every comment, and thank you for your time.