Is there any technical difference between a REPL and an interpreter?
Interactive interpreters use REPLs. An interpreter is not required to have one. You can run Python, for example, in non-interactive mode (on a file) and it will not use a read-eval-print loop.
Related
How could I automate interactions with command line programs that expose a text terminal interface with Perl 6 for testing purposes?
If you want to use Perl 6 to automate execution or testing of console applications, I think you're going to use NativeCall to interact with the expect library. Once expect is installed, man libexpect will show its API documentation, though the way of accessing the documentation (such as the manpage name) may differ per package distribution.
Expect has APIs to launch a program, wait for text to appear on the (emulated) console (to "expect" text), and send text to the console (to emulate typing). The most common use case is to automate programs which require password input. Expect is often scripted--it is an interpreter--but there's no reason not to use it from a higher level programming language.
Edit: I somewhat answered the wrong question. The OP is interested in testing Perl 6 modules with Perl 6. That said, using expect to launch a second Perl 6 interpreter which uses the module is still the strongest, most strict way to test the application. You don't need to know what type of terminal library the module uses, because expect should be compatible with nearly all of them. You can send text to the STDIN pipe of a subprocess, but that's not as strong as the subprocess (console) communication you can get from expect. I don't know if there's a way to hijack whichever terminal library the module uses and communicate with it directly.
If it's just a plain interface, you could just run the program and collect output. The currently-experimental Testo module has is-run routine. You could use that directly, or if experimental status is bothersome, copy the guts of it into your own helper routine.
Take a look at Sparrow6 Task Check Language - Perl6 based DSL to verify text output. I've done a lot terminal apps testing using it.
I sometimes test Python modules as I develop them by running a Python interactive prompt in a terminal, importing my new module and testing out the functionality. Of course, since my code is in development there are bugs, and frequent restarts of the interpreter are required. This isn't too painful when I've only executed a couple of interpreter lines before restarting: my key sequence when the interpreter restart looks like Up Up Enter Up Up Enter... but extrapolate it to 5 or more statements to be repeated and it gets seriously painful!
Of course I could put my test code into a script which I execute with python -i, but this is such a scratch activity that it doesn't seem quite "above threshold" for opening a text editor :) What I'm really pining for is the Ctrl-r behaviour from the bash shell: executing a sequence of 10 commands in sequence in bash involves finding the command in history (repeated Up or Ctrl-r for a search -- both work in the Python interpreter shell) and then just pressing Ctrl-o ten times. One of my favourite bash shell features.
The problem is that while lots of other readline binding functionality like Ctrl-a, Ctrl-e, Ctrl-r, and Ctrl-s work in the Python interpreter, Ctrl-o does not. I've not been able to find any references to this online, although perhaps the readline module can be used to add this functionality to the python prompt. Any suggestions?
Edit: Yes, I know that using the interactive interpreter is not a development methodology that scales beyond a few lines! But it is convenient for small tests, and IMO the interactiveness can help to work out whether a developing API is natural and convenient, or too heavy. So please confine the answers to the technical question of whether readline history-stepping can be made to work in python, rather than the side-opinion of whether one should or shouldn't choose to (sometimes) work this way!
Edit: Since posting I realised that I am already using the readline module to make some Python interpreter history functions work. But the Ctrl-o binding to the operate-and-get-next readline command doesn't seem to be supported, even if I put readline.parse_and_bind("Control-o: operate-and-get-next") in my PYTHONSTARTUP file.
I often test Python modules as I develop them by running a Python interactive prompt in a terminal, importing my new module and testing out the functionality.
Stop using this pattern and start writing your test code in a file and your life will be much easier.
No matter what, running that file will be less trouble.
If you make the checks automatic rather than reading the results, it will be quicker and less error-prone to check your code.
You can save that file when you're done and run it whenever you change your code or environment.
You can perform metrics on the tests, like making sure you don't have parts of your code you didn't test.
Are you familiar with the unittest module?
Answering my own question, after some discussion on the python-ideas list: despite contradictory information in some readline documentation it seems that the operate-and-get-next function is in fact defined as a bash extension to readline, not by core readline.
So that's why Ctrl-o neither behaves as hoped by default when importing the readline module in a Python interpreter session, nor when attempting to manually force this binding: the function doesn't exist in the readline library to be bound.
A Google search reveals https://bugs.launchpad.net/ipython/+bug/382638, on which the GNU readline maintainer gives reasons for not adding this functionality to core readline and says that it should be implemented by the calling application. He also says "its implementation is not complicated", although it's not obvious to me how (or whether it's even possible) to do this as a pure Python extension to the readline module behaviour.
So no, this is not possible at the moment, unless the operate-and-get-next function from bash is explicitly implemented in the Python readline module or in the interpreter itself.
This isn't exactly an answer to your question, but if that is your development style you might want to look at DreamPie. It is a GUI wrapper for the Python terminal that provides various handy shortcuts. One of these is the ability to drag-select across the interpreter display and copy only the code (not the output). You can then paste this code in and run it again. I find this handy for the type of workflow you describe.
Your best bet will be to check that project : http://ipython.org
This is an example with a history search with Ctrl+R :
EDIT
If you are running debian or derivated :
sudo apt-get install ipython
Basically I'm wondering if I can compile code that a user inputs in a mac app (I'm trying to make an OCaml text editor that compiles your code) using executables that are already available in the user's system, such as ocamlc etc. I don't have any code to show or anything because I'm still figuring out if/how I could build this mac app. Not really sure what other info I should include, so just ask. Thanks!
You can use either Sys.command "<your shell command>" or Unix.open_process* and Unix.create_process commands. See man Sys and man Unix for more information.
In Objective-C, C, and C++, and a multitude of other languages, use system(3). Also see:
exec(3)
popen(3)
If you are using Objective-C, check out NSTask.
If not, look at popen. popen gives your parent process control over the I/O streams.
I am new to Prolog, and the task of launching the prolog interpreter from the terminal, typing consult('some_prolog_program.pl'), and then testing the predicate you just wrote is very time consuming, is there a way to run a scripted test to speed up development?
For example in C I can write a main where I would use the functions I defined, I can then execute:
make && ./a.out
to test the code, can I do something similar with Prolog?
You can have the interpreter always open and then recompile the file.
You can auto-run a predicate after compiling the file:
:- foo(4,2).
This will run foo(4,2) when the line is encountered in the file.
There are flags that can be used while launching (most) Prolog interpreters that allow you to compile a file and run predicates (check the man page). This way you could make a Bash script. The following will consult file.pl and run foo/0 using SWI-Prolog:
#!/bin/sh
exec swipl -q -f none -g "load_files([file],[silent(true)])" \
-t foo -- $*
This predicate will unify Arguments with a list of the flags you gave at the command line:
current_prolog_flag(argv, Arguments)
But unless you are going to run a lot of tests, I don't think that writing all this extra code will be faster.
Personally I really like the flexibility of testing any predicate at any time with or without tracing (see trace/0) without having to write extra code to call them (unlike in C).
P.S. about reloading the file without leaving the interpreter: You might have some problem if you have used dynamic predicates or global variables; you will have to do some cleaning.
You can invoke a test file from the command-line with prolog +l <file>
Also, you can build a single run_tests predicate that exercises a series of calls and validates the actual results against expected results. Here's an article with a good worked-out example: http://kenegozi.com/blog/2008/07/24/unit-testing-in-prolog
In SWI, you can load things as usual. Then, when you edit your files you simply say make. on the toplevel and it checks all dependencies automatically and only reloads the modified files.
For bigger projects it does make a lot of sense to use makefiles. In particular to do unit testing. See SWI's package plunit.
For simple scripts in SWI-Prolog, using REPL to test the code manually is usually good enough. Changed files can be reloaded via make/0 (?- make. on toplevel). Just keep the Prolog REPL running while editing, then save the edits, run make. in the REPL and hit ↑, ↑, Enter to execute the last query before the make. from history.
The main benefit of REPL is its interactivity:
You may fiddle with the arguments.
Transition to debugging or tracing (both command line and graphical) is easy.
You don't need to perform I/O to print the result. Output is handled by the toplevel, which prints the substitution. You see the whole substitution, not only its part you just happen to print (possibly accidentally overlooking other parts).
You may interactively choose how many substitutions you want to see for a goal that succeeds multiple times.
It is obvious if there is a choice point left after the last result returned by a non-deterministic predicate, which is hard to observe otherwise. In that case, false. is printed when backtracking beyond the last result.
If you need to preserve the test calls to repeat them later, create a protocol (transcript or "log" of the interactive session) and edit it to become a script, or even a test suite (see below). The protocol is a plain text file with escape sequences for the terminal, containing a verbatim copy of what you see during the interactive session. View the protocol using cat protocol.txt on Linux (and other *NIXes) or type protocol.txt on Windows.
If interactivity is not needed, perform the test calls from the command line non-interactively. Let's test the CLP(FD) factorial example n_factorial/2, saved in factorial.pl (don't forget to add :- use_module(library(clpfd)). when copying the code):
$ swipl -q -t "between(0, 9, N), n_factorial(N, F), format('~D ', F), fail." factorial.pl
1 1 2 6 24 120 720 5,040 40,320 362,880
On Windows, you may need to specify full path to swipl.exe as it's not in the PATH, probably.
If the call is always the same, you may save it to a shell script or Makefile (run would be a good name for the target).
In your current workflow for testing functions in C, you create a new program and call the function under test from its entry point (main function). Prolog scripts can have an entry point, too. See library(main). Prolog does not require compilation, so you can just directly call the script (./test.pl) without calling Make first.
For larger projects, you may want to create a less ad-hoc test suite. A unit testing framework like PlUnit is needed. Its use is beyond the scope of this answer; see the documentation.
If I want to write a java(or other jvm language script)
Maybe by doing something like caching jit results?
What about gcj compiled binaries?
(P.S. if you could explain waht techniques it uses to decrease startup time)
See https://www-304.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg21255195 for such example.
Take a look at Nailgun: Insanely Fast Java. It runs a JVM server in the background and provides a thin client written in C to pass command line arguments and environment variables to the server process.
It means that all your scripts run in the same JVM server process, but avoids the startup overhead.