There's clearly a blurry line between macros and slangs. We should probably keep it that way. But for this post — as I keep mapping out more of the possible futures the best of which we are aiming for — I don't exactly know if it's macros I'm talking about, or slangs.

(Meanwhile, in a parallel universe, masak-with-a-toggled-goatee writes a similarly ambiguous post in his series of investigative blogginations about slangs.)

Consider this code from the near future:

use Slang::HTML; use Slang::SQL; my $keyword = "dugong"; my $db = $*DB; my $webpage = html` <html> <body> <h1>Results for {$keyword}</h1> <ul id="results"> {list-items($db.query( sql` SELECT title, snippet FROM products WHERE {$keyword} in title `))} </ul> </body> </html> `;

Let's ignore the fact that mixing HTML and database calls is something that most of us did back in the nineties and would prefer not doing again. Let's also leave aside the fact that I don't know the actual syntax for introducing a slang, and I basically just picked something that didn't look awful. (Or maybe it does. Anyway, it's not my call.)

Instead, let's focus on the three awesome things with the above code:

Yes, that is indeed SQL in Perl 6 in HTML in Perl 6.

Lexical scoping still works, all the way down the slang stack. Both the HTML and SQL slangs are pulling out $keyword from the mainline Perl 6 code. Similarly, the sandwiched Perl 6 code pulls out $db from the mainline.

Lastly, implied in all this is that both SQL injection and cross-site scripting are basically solved problems with these slangs, and it's not even hard because Perl 6 already treats these languages as AST-based, not text based. (A-ha! I knew there was a connection to macros somewhere!)

Where's all this coming from? I've had the above long-term vision for a long time, but it was re-triggered by the paper Safely Composable Type-Specific Languages. It's nice, although the first half is lighter reading than the second. My code above is based on their code from page 2, except mine has better indentation.

I do like the idea from that paper that literals could basically be defined by module authors. And there's another sense that stirs in me that I've had lately when writing hobby Perl 6: that of defining first a model (objects), then a set of rules (functions and methods), and then a syntax (custom operators). I've only had a small taste of that kind of programming, but I like it.

Anyway, here are my takeaways from the paper:

Yes, we do need to get away from treating languages as strings. Perl 6 already does this excellently with grammars ("the first slang"). We need to do it with All The Things, though.

Later examples in the paper with the Wyvern language use a kind of "typed heredoc", which I think is foreign to the way parsing works in Perl 6. Specifically, in the example in Figure 1, the switching into the HTML slang is governed by the compiler knowing the signature of the serve() function. I think neither the Perl 6 parser nor Perl programmers would find it natural to let types influence language switching in that way. Better to be explicit.

(It's perfectly fine if the HTML slang returns an HTML object of some kind. Type signatures could then be checked at compile time, and Calling 'serve' would never work -style errors thrown, etc. Type checking information can propagate outward.)

The Wyvern language does something interesting with specifying parsing of a type along with the type declaration itself. It's yet another case of something that would probably look quite a bit different in a Perl 6 factoring, but it's worth remembering that declaration of model and declaration of syntax can be brought this close together.

Possible ways forward on this: both the HTML and SQL slangs are possible today, with some degree of bending the implementation. FROGGS++ is showing the way with Slang::Tuxic — let's do something similar with these.

Edit: not one minute after publishing this post, I'm made aware of Slang::SQL on Github. It's not quite there yet, but it's working its way toward the ideal I have in mind. Nice! Ok, so now I only have to rally the people to building Slang::HTML . 哈哈

Signing off with this thought: