toke.c: S_intuit_more: Add more commentary

This function is described in its comments as 'terrifying', and by its
original author, Larry Wall, as "truly awful".  As a result, it has been
mostly untouched since its introduction in 1993.  That means it has not
been updated as new language features have been added.

As an example, it does not know about lexical variables, so the code it
has for globals just doesn't work on the vast majority of modern day
coding practices.

Another example is it knows nothing of UTF-8, and as a result simply
changing the input encoding from Latin1 to UTF-8 can result in its
outcome being the opposite result.

And it is buggy.

An example of how hard this can be to get right is this fairly common
use in our test suite:

 [$A-Z]

That looks like a character class matching 27 characters.  But wait,
what if there exists a $A and a parameterless subroutine 'Z'.  Then this
could instead be an expression for a subcript.

A few years ago, I set out to try to understand it.  I added commentary
and simplified some overly complicated expressions, but left its
behavior unchanged.

Now, I set out to make some changes, and found many more issues than I
had earlier.  This commit adds commentary about those.  Hopefully this
will lead to some discussion and a consensus on the way forward.

Author: khwilliamson

perl.c

@@ -3509,7 +3509,7 @@ Perl_eval_pv(pTHX_ const char *p, I32 croak_on_error)
 
 Tells Perl to C<require> the file named by the string argument.  It is
 analogous to the Perl code C<eval "require '$file'">.  It's even
-implemented that way; consider using load_module instead.
+implemented that way; consider using C<L</load_module>> instead.
 
 =cut */
 

toke.c

@@ -4549,19 +4549,47 @@ S_intuit_more(pTHX_ char *s, char *e)
     /* Here is '[': maybe we have a character class.  Examine the guts */
     s++;
 
-    /* '^' implies a character class; An empty '[]' isn't legal, but it does
-     * mean there isn't more to come */
+    /* '^' implies a character class; An empty '[]' isn't legal, and it means
+     * there isn't more to come */
     if (s[0] == ']' || s[0] == '^')
         return FALSE;
 
-    /* Find matching ']'.  khw: This means any s[1] below is guaranteed to
-     * exist */
+    /* khw: If the context of this call is $foo[...], we may be able to avoid
+     * the heuristics below.  The possibilities are:
+     *  strict    @foo    $foo
+     *   vars?   exists   exists
+     *    y         n       n      This is an error; return false now
+     *    y         n       y      must be a a charclass
+     *    y         y       n      must be a a subscript
+     *    y         y       y      ambiguous; do heuristics below
+     *    n         n       n      ambiguous; do heuristics below
+     *    n         n       y      ambiguous; do heuristics below, but I
+     *                             wonder if the initial bias should be a
+     *                             little towards charclass
+     *    n         y       n      ambiguous; do heuristics below, but I
+     *                             wonder if the initial bias should be a
+     *                             little towards subscript
+     *    n         y       y      ambiguous; do heuristics below
+     */
+
+    /* Find matching ']'.  khw: Actually it finds the next ']' and assumes it
+     * matches the '['.  In order to account for the possibility of the ']'
+     * being inside the scope of \Q or preceded by an even number of
+     * backslashes, this should be rewritten */
     const char * const send = (char *) memchr(s, ']', e - s);
     if (! send)		/* has to be an expression */
         return TRUE;
 
+    /* Below here, the heuristics start.  One idea from alh is, given 'use
+     * 5.43.x', that for all digits, that if we have to resort to heuristics,
+     * we instead raise an error with an explanation of how to make it
+     * unambiguous: ${foo}[123] */
+
     /* If the construct consists entirely of one or two digits, call it a
-     * subscript. */
+     * subscript.
+     *
+     * khw: No one writes 03 to mean 3.  Any string of digits beginning with
+     * '0' is likely to be a charclass, including length 2 ones. */
     if (isDIGIT(s[0]) && send - s <= 2 && (send - s == 1 || (isDIGIT(s[1])))) {
         return TRUE;
     }
@@ -4596,6 +4624,13 @@ S_intuit_more(pTHX_ char *s, char *e)
     Zero(seen, 256, char);
 
     /* Examine each character in the construct */
+    /* That this knows nothing of UTF-8 can lead to opposite results if the
+     * text is encoded in UTF-8 or not; another relic of the Unicode Bug.
+     * Suppose a string consistis of various un-repeated code points between
+     * 0x128 and 0x255.  When encoded in UTF-8 their start bytes will all be
+     * \xC2 or \xC3.  The heuristics below will count those as repeated bytes,
+     * and thus lean more towards this being a character class than when not
+     * in UTF-8. */
     bool first_time = true;
     for (; s < send; s++, first_time = false) {
         unsigned char prev_un_char = un_char;
@@ -4617,15 +4652,42 @@ S_intuit_more(pTHX_ char *s, char *e)
                 char tmpbuf[sizeof PL_tokenbuf * 4];
                 scan_ident(s, tmpbuf, sizeof tmpbuf, FALSE);
                 len = (int)strlen(tmpbuf);
+
+                /* khw: This only looks at global variables; lexicals came
+                 * later, and this hasn't been updated.  Ouch!! */
                 if (   len > 1
                     && gv_fetchpvn_flags(tmpbuf,
                                          len,
                                          UTF ? SVf_UTF8 : 0,
                                          SVt_PV))
+                {
                     weight -= 100;
-                else    /* Not a multi-char identifier already known in the
-                           program; is somewhat likely to be a subscript */
+
+                    /* khw: Below we keep track of repeated characters;  People
+                     * rarely say qr/[aba]/, as the second a is pointless.
+                     * (Some do it though as a mnemonic that is meaningful to
+                     * them.)  But generally, repeated characters makes things
+                     * more likely to be a charclass.  But we have here that
+                     * this an identifier so likely a subscript.  Its spelling
+                     * should be irrelevant to the repeated characters test.
+                     * So, we should advance past it.  Suppose it is a hash
+                     * element, like $subscripts{$which}.  We should advance
+                     * past the braces and key */
+                }
+                else {
+                    /* Not a multi-char identifier already known in the
+                     * program; is somewhat likely to be a subscript.
+                     *
+                     * khw: Our test suite contains several constructs like
+                     * [$A-Z].  Excluding length 1 identifiers in the
+                     * conditional above means such are much less likely to be
+                     * mistaken for subscripts.  I would argue that if the next
+                     * character is a '-' followed by an alpha, that would make
+                     * it much more likely to be a charclass.  It would only
+                     * make sense to be an expression if that alpha string is a
+                     * bareword with meaning; something like [$A-ord] */
                     weight -= 10;
+                }
             }
             else if (   s[0] == '$'
                      && s[1]
@@ -4642,13 +4704,51 @@ S_intuit_more(pTHX_ char *s, char *e)
             }
             break;
 
+          /* khw:  [:blank:] strongly indicates a charclass */
+          /* khw: Z-A definitely subscript
+           *      Z-Z likely subscript
+           *      "x - z" with blanks very likely subscript
+           *      \N without { must be subscript
+           *      \R must be subscript
+           *      \? must be subscript for things like \d, but not \a.
+           */
+
+
           case '\\':
             if (s[1]) {
-                if (memCHRs("wds]", s[1]))
+                if (memCHRs("wds]", s[1])) {
                     weight += 100;  /* \w \d \s => strongly charclass */
-                    /* khw: Why not \W \D \S \h \v, etc as well? */
-                else if (seen[(U8)'\''] || seen[(U8)'"'])
-                    weight += 1;    /* \' => mildly charclass */
+                    /* khw: \] can't happen, as any ']' is beyond our search.
+                     * Why not \W \D \S \h \v, etc as well?  Should they have
+                     * the same weights as \w \d \s or should all or some be
+                     * in the 'abcfnrtvx' below? */
+                } else if (seen[(U8)'\''] || seen[(U8)'"']) {
+                    weight += 1;
+                    /* khw: This is problematic.  Enough so, that I misread
+                     * it, and added a wrong comment about what it does in
+                     * 57ae1f3a8e669082e3d5ec6a8cdffbdc39d87bee.  Note that it
+                     * doesn't look at the current character.  What it
+                     * actually does is: if any quote has been seen in the
+                     * parse, don't do the rest of the else's below, but for
+                     * every subsequent backslashed character encountered
+                     * (except \0 \w \s \d), increment the weight to lean a
+                     * bit more towards being a charclass.  That means that
+                     * every backslash sequence following the first occurrence
+                     * of a quote increments the weight regardless of what the
+                     * sequence is.  Again, \0 \w \d and \s are not controlled
+                     * by this else, so they change the weight by a lot more.
+                     * But what makes them so special that they aren't subject
+                     * to this.  Any why does having a quote change the
+                     * behavior from then on.  And why only backslashed
+                     * sequences get this treatment?  This code has been
+                     * unchanged since this function was added in 1993.  I
+                     * don't get it.  Instead, it does seem to me that it is
+                     * especially unlikely to repeat a quote in a charclass,
+                     * but that having just a single quote is indicative of a
+                     * charclass, and having pairs of quotes is indicative of
+                     * a subscript.  Similarly for things that could indicate
+                     * nesting of braces or parens. */
+                }
                 else if (memCHRs("abcfnrtvx", s[1]))
                     weight += 40;   /* \n, etc => charclass */
                     /* khw: Why not \e etc as well? */
@@ -4657,6 +4757,19 @@ S_intuit_more(pTHX_ char *s, char *e)
                     while (s[1] && isDIGIT(s[1]))
                         s++;
                 }
+
+                /* khw: There are lots more possible escape sequences.  Some,
+                 * like \A,\z have no special meaning to charclasses, so might
+                 * indicate a subscript, but I don't know what they would be
+                 * doing there either.  Some have been added to the language
+                 * after this code was written, but no one thought to, or
+                 * could wade through this function, to add them.  Things like
+                 * \p{} for properties, \N and \N{}, for example.
+                 *
+                 * It's problematic that \a is treated as plain 'a' for
+                 * purposes of the 'seen' array.  Whatever is matched by these
+                 * backslashed sequences should not be added to 'seen'.  That
+                 * includes the backslash. */
             }
             else /* \ followed by NUL strongly indicates character class */
                 weight += 100;
@@ -4702,7 +4815,25 @@ S_intuit_more(pTHX_ char *s, char *e)
                 && isALPHA(s[1]))
             {
                 /* Here it's \W (that isn't [$@&] ) followed immediately by two
-                 * alphas in a row.  Accumulate all the consecutive alphas */
+                 * alphas in a row.  Accumulate all the consecutive alphas.
+                 *
+                 * khw: The code below was changed in 2015 by
+                 * 56f81afc0f2d331537f38e6f12b86a850187cb8a to solve a
+                 * buffer overrun.  Prior to that commit, the code copied all
+                 * the consecutive alphas to a temporary.  The problem was
+                 * that temporary's size could be exceeded, and the temporary
+                 * wasn't even needed (at least by 2015).  The called
+                 * keyword() function doesn't need a copy.  It takes a pointer
+                 * to the first character and a length, hence it can operate
+                 * on the original source text.  It is intended to catch cases
+                 * like $a[ord].  If it does match a keyword, we don't want
+                 * the spelling of that keyword to affect the seen[] array.
+                 * But if it isn't a keyword we do want to fall back to the
+                 * normal behavior.  And the 2015 commit removed that.  It
+                 * absorbs every bareword regardless, defeating the intent of
+                 * the algorithm implementing the heuristics.  That not many
+                 * bugs have surfaced since indicates this whole thing doesn't
+                 * get applied very much */
                 char *d = s;
                 while (isALPHA(s[0]))
                     s++;
@@ -4712,7 +4843,12 @@ S_intuit_more(pTHX_ char *s, char *e)
                 if (keyword(d, s - d, 0))
                     weight -= 150;
 
-                /* khw: Should those alphas be marked as seen? */
+                /* khw: Barewords could also be subroutine calls, and these
+                 * would also indicate a subscript.  Like [green] where
+                 * 'green' has been declared, for example, in 'use constant'
+                 * Or maybe it should just call intuit_method() which checks
+                 * for keyword, subs, and methods.
+                 * */
             }
 
             /* Consecutive chars like [...12...] and [...ab...] are presumed
@@ -4727,23 +4863,36 @@ S_intuit_more(pTHX_ char *s, char *e)
             /* But repeating a character inside a character class does nothing,
              * like [aba], so less likely that someone makes such a class, more
              * likely that it is a subscript; the more repeats, the less
-             * likely. */
+             * likely.
+             *
+             * khw: I think this changes the weight too rapidly.  Each time
+             * through the loop compounds the previous times.  Instead, it
+             * would be better to have a separate loop after all the rest that
+             * changes the weight once based on how many times each character
+             * gets repeated */
             weight -= seen[un_char];
             break;
         }   /* End of switch */
 
         /* khw: 'seen' is declared as a char.  This ++ can cause it to wrap.
          * This gives different results with compilers for which a plain 'char'
-         * is actually unsigned, versus those where it is signed.  I believe it
-         * is undefined behavior to wrap a 'signed'.  I think it should be
-         * instead declared an unsigned int to make the chances of wrapping
-         * essentially zero.
+         * is actually unsigned, versus those where it is signed.  The C99
+         * standard allows a compiler to raise a signal when a 'signed' char
+         * is incremented outside its permissible range.  I think 'seen'
+         * should be instead declared an unsigned, and a conditional added
+         * to prevent wrapping.
          *
          * And I believe that extra backslashes are different from other
-         * repeated characters. */
+         * repeated characters.  There may be others, like I have mentioned
+         * quotes and paired delimiters  */
         seen[un_char]++;
     }   /* End of loop through each character of the construct */
 
+    /* khw: People on #irc have suggested things that I think boil down to:
+     * under 'use 5.43.x', output a warning like existing warnings for
+     * similar situations "Ambiguous use of [], resolved as ..."  Perhaps
+     * suppress the message if all (or maybe almost all) the evidence points
+     * to the same outcome.  This would involve two weight variables */
     if (weight >= 0)	/* probably a character class */
         return FALSE;