The State of Multi-Line Input in Rakudo

Last week, I created an experimental branch for multi-line input in the Rakudo REPL. I merged this branch on Friday, but I wanted to talk about where we stand, and where I see us going in the future.

Multi-Line Input

It used to be that when you tried to enter a multiple line statement (such as a block) in the Rakudo REPL, you'd get an unsurprising but frustrating error:

  > for ^10 {
  ===SORRY!=== Error while compiling <unknown file>
  Missing block
  at <unknown file>:2
  ------> <BOL>⏏<EOL>

Lack of proper multi-line input was one of the most common complaints I saw about the Rakudo REPL; I always dismissed it as "too hard to do" (for reasons which I'll present in a moment). However, by borrowing a trick from the Lua standalone REPL, I was able to get a rudimentary but useful multi-line REPL to work. All the REPL does now is if compiling the code throws an exception of type X::Syntax::Missing, and the exception occurs at the very end of the input stream, it assumes that the missing input will provided by the user in a future line and enters into a multi-line input mode. So now, if you try to enter a for loop, instead of seeing the above, you'll see this:


(You can disable this behavior by setting the environment variable RAKUDO_DISABLE_MULTILINE to a non-zero value)

This approach, however, comes with caveats; anything that happens at compile time will happen repeatedly, once for every input line:

  > BEGIN say 'hi'; for ^1 {
  * .say;
  * }

The reason for this is the parser is re-compiling that same input over and over again, so things like BEGIN blocks are run over and over again. It's easy enough to understand that and avoid things like BEGIN blocks, but it also inteferes with other constructs that have a compile-time effect, like classes:

  > class C {
  *   has $!attr;
  * }
  Package 'C' already has an attribute named '$!attr'

Unfortunately, this isn't an easy fix; we would need to make Rakudo able to snapshot its parse state upon seeing an end-of-text so that we could resume a parse given more input. I'm open to other approaches if anyone has suggestions!

Moving Forward

Other than addressing the issue above, I would like to make Linenoise and Readline history more aware of multi-line entries. I have a host of other ideas in this gist; please feel free to reach out if you have thoughts on what I have in there, or if there's something that I've missed!

Published on 2016-02-15