---
created_at: '2015-06-14T07:21:10.000Z'
title: 'Perl Cannot Be Parsed: A Formal Proof (2008)'
url: http://www.perlmonks.org/?node_id=663393
author: __Joker
points: 57
story_text: ''
comment_text: 
num_comments: 12
story_id: 
story_title: 
story_url: 
parent_id: 
created_at_i: 1434266470
_tags:
- story
- author___Joker
- story_9714046
objectID: '9714046'

---
<!-- end list -->

``` code
sub halts {
    my $machine = shift;
    my $input = shift;
    is_whatever_nullary(
       qq{
          run_turing_equivalent("\Q$machine\E", "\Q$input\E");
          sub whatever() {};
       }
    )
}
[download]
```

is\_whatever\_nullary() can certainly easily return a true value without
having to execute run\_turing\_equivalent(). The whatever prototype is a
compile-time property and the run-time impact of whatever
run\_turing\_equivalent() does will not change the fact that whatever()
is "nullary" at compile time.

But it is quite obvious that Perl code can't be reliably parsed without
running Perl code by the simple example of:

``` code
BEGIN {
    if(  0.5 < rand()  ) {
        eval "sub whatever() { }; 1" or die $@;
    } else {
        eval "sub whatever { }; 1" or die $@;
    }
}
whatever  / 25 ; # / ; die "this dies!";
[download]
```

You can, of course, replace the above conditional with some
high-falutin' comp sci construct of your choosing. But I find that such
just detracts from the obviousness. You have to run "`0.5 < rand()`" in
order to parse the last line of the above Perl code (which perl can
parse differently each time that it is run, as shown below).

``` code
 > perl -MO=Deparse above.pl
# ...
whatever / 25;
- syntax OK

 > perl -MO=Deparse above.pl
# ...
whatever(/ 25 ; # /);
die 'this dies!';
- syntax OK
[download]
```

\- [tye](?node=tye)`        `

<!-- end list -->

``` code
sub halts {
    my $machine = shift;
    my $input = shift;
    is_whatever_nullary(
       qq{
          BEGIN {
               run_turing_equivalent("\Q$machine\E", "\Q$input\E");
               sub whatever() {};
          }
       }
    )
}
[download]
```

Using *rand()* is indeed more obvious and it was how I tested my code
snippets (I lent my Halting Oracle to a friend and she never returned it
... but don't get me started.) I did not use it in the presentation
because while it makes the proof more obvious, it's a proof of a weaker
theorem.

If you interpret *rand()* as truly random (and not as pseudo-random),
then we're dealing with non-deterministic programs. Someone might then
say, "as long as there is no non-determinism while compiling, Perl 5 is
statically parseable." But it's not and a proof using the Turing machine
simulator shows it is not. That Perl 5 is unparseable even when the code
is completely deterministic is a much stronger result, and the
distinction makes a difference in practice.

The Turing simulation in this case is brought in for very practical
reasons. I can't claim the credit for that. Adam Kennedy's hint took me
in this direction. I suspect he also knew the business about *rand()*.
But with his many hours of real life experience trying to statically
parse Perl, he focused on the stronger proof -- the one that would give
him the most information about what he was up against in creating
[PPI](http://search.cpan.org/perldoc?PPI).

<!-- end list -->

<!-- end list -->

``` code
BEGIN {
    my $proto= "";
    $proto= "()"
        if  run_some_perl_code();
    eval "sub whatever$proto { }";
}
whatever / 6; # /;
[download]
```

The fact that run\_some\_perl\_code() can be any arbitrary Perl code is
quite clear. I guess this then boils down to the argument that somehow
static analysis could be used to predict the results of
run\_some\_perl\_code() without actually running it. But the
[rand](?node=rand) example clearly shows that not to be the case. As
does using `if @ARGV` or `if <STDIN> =~ /^y/i` or `if
LWP::Simple::get("http://perlmonks.org/secretAlgorithm.pl") =~ /true/`
or `if unlink "/etc/passwd"` or `if find_prime_of_length( ~0 ) % 3
== 1`.

Sure, the fact that run\_some\_perl\_code() could be trying to solve the
halting problem also demonstrates something. Of course, if I'm writing
Perl support for an IDE, I'm not seriously concerned that the
declaration of function prototypes is being based on answers to
instances of the halting problem, so I'm likely to just dismiss your
proof (based on your own reaction to the [rand](?node=rand) case). I
find "You might have to run arbitrary Perl code" to be both a stronger
statement of the result and a more interesting and useful one.

I also think there is a flaw in your proof in that it confuses solving
the halting problem with running code that may or may not halt. So your
conclusion would need to be more like "Here is some code that will
either determine that whatever() is nullary or that will never
terminate." Since just because the code has been taking 400 years
doesn't mean that you can determine that it will never halt, so your
code doesn't even have the potential of solving the halting problem.

So the lemma that is needed here is that "Static analysis of a program
in a Turing-complete language (along with its 'input') can be
insufficient to determine its output". Frankly, this is where it becomes
uninteresting to me.

(Minor updates applied during the 15 minutes after first posting.)

\- [tye](?node=tye)`        `

<!-- end list -->

``` code
eval $ARGV[ 0 ];
[download]
```

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love
the truth but pardon error.

"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

["Too many \[\] have been sedated by an oppressive environment of
political correctness and risk
aversion."](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6202877.stm)

<!-- end list -->

<!-- end list -->

<!-- end list -->

<!-- end list -->

<!-- end list -->

<!-- end list -->

<!-- end list -->

<!-- end list -->

<!-- end list -->

<!-- end list -->

``` code
my $x;
BEGIN { $x = time }
[download]
```

Unless the BEGIN block is executed both at compile time and once at
pre-run time.

Of course, I might be a few months out of date. I got bored following
all the Perl 6 stuff, so I'm working on
[Smalltalk](http://methodsandmessages.vox.com) for a while until Perl6
gets a bit closer to a release.

\-- [Randal L. Schwartz, Perl hacker](http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/)

<!-- end list -->

``` code
multi sub prefix:<foo> (Str $a) {
     return $a eq "foo" ?? "bar" !! "foo";
}
[download]
```

This will define an unary prefix operator that takes one string as an
argument. When somebody writes

``` code
foo "foo";
[download]
```

You can't know if that's a method call or a call to an operator. You'd
think it makes no difference - but wait until precedence comes into the
play:

``` code
BEGIN {
    eval 
    "
multi * prefix:<foo> (Str $a) is tighter(&infix:<~>) {
     return $a eq 'foo' ?? 'bar' !! 'foo';
    ";
}

# and later in the code:
foo "fo" ~ "o";
[download]
```

If that `foo` parsed as a sub call the precedence is lower than that of
the concatenation `~`, and the other way round if it's parsed as an
operator.

This is quite a complicated example, but there are much easier ones with
"real" macros. (But since no implemenation really implements macros by
now, I don't really know much about them).

<!-- end list -->

``` code
foo =+= bar //|/ baz =+= qux
[download]
```

The parsing of this expression depends on the relative precedence of the
two operators and possibily, but not necessarily, on the associativity
of =+= It may also result in an error, if //|/ has higher precedence and
=+= is declared as non-associative.

However, the parsing of this does not depend on executing any code in
the sense that the OP means, I think. That is, there must be a static
declaration somewhere else in the code that says what the properties of
these two operators should be. It need not lexically precede the usage,
but it has to appear somewhere in the relevant scope, and it cannot be
dynamically generated in any way. How would that fit in?

<!-- end list -->

<!-- end list -->

<!-- end list -->

<!-- end list -->

    if (is_nullary(whatever))
    {
      whatever / 25;
    }
    else
    {
      whatever (/ 25 ; # /);
      die "this dies!";
    }

When we think about it, the Perl interpreter already does this. So
technicaly, parsing Perl is not a undecidable problem. You only proved
that there could not be a single way to parse Perl - and yes, it is a
problem for text editor's syntax-highlighting.

<!-- end list -->

<!-- end list -->

<!-- end list -->

<!-- end list -->

<!-- end list -->

``` code
import sys
import parser

print parser.suite(open(__file__).read()).totuple()

x = eval(sys.stdin.readline())

if x:
        print "yes", x
else:
        print "no", x
[download]
```

To bring this back to the original post, the "parser" module is the
Python equivalent of what Parse::Perl would be if Perl parsing were
possible.

<!-- end list -->

<!-- end list -->

<!-- end list -->

<!-- end list -->

<!-- end list -->

``` code
  BEGIN {
    x();
    sub foo { }
  }
[download]
```

then foo() will be declared only when x() terminates.

But that's like writing this Java code

``` code
  for(;;) { }
  int x;
[download]
```

and asking whether "x" will ever be declared, which says absolutely
nothing about how this program is parsed (and it's parsed fine).

Cheers.

<!-- end list -->

<!-- end list -->

``` code
use Modern::Perl;

sub x { say "In x!" }

BEGIN { x() }

sub foo!bar { say 'In foo!bar!' }

BEGIN { foo!bar() }
[download]
```

For extra fun, run it through
[B::Deparse](http://search.cpan.org/search?mode=module&query=B%3A%3ADeparse).

<!-- end list -->
