From @simoncozens

% ./perl -le '$a=do xa for ax;'
% ./perl -le 'do "xa" for ax;'
% ./perl -le 'do xa for ax;'
Missing $ on loop variable at -e line 1.
% ./perl -le 'do xa for "ax"'
% ./perl -le 'do xa for sin(1)'
Missing $ on loop variable at -e line 1.
% ./perl -le 'do xa for (sin(1))'

Get this​:
% ./perl -le 'do xa for "sin"'
% ./perl -le 'do xa for qq(sin)'
Missing $ on loop variable at -e line 1.
% ./perl -le 'do xa for my $a'
% ./perl -le 'do xa for my @​a'
Missing $ on loop variable at -e line 1.

The "Missing $" only happens for package/do/require/use followed by
bareword, and no other builtins, and where 'for' is followed by
anything other than /[$%@​("']/ or my/our $foo.

I can't see how it's getting that, because allowing "my" and "our" with
a scalar suggests it's parsing "for" as the beginning of a statement,
but "for @​a" is not allowed at the beginning of a statement, and Deparse
reports​:
  % ./perl -Ilib -MO=Deparse -le 'do xa for my $a'

  foreach $_ (my($a)) {
  do 'xa';
  }

Flags:
    category=core
    severity=low

Site configuration information for perl v5.6.0:

Configured by bod at Fri Mar  9 06:08:27 EST 2001.

Summary of my perl5 (revision 5.0 version 6 subversion 0) configuration:
  Platform:
    osname=linux, osvers=2.4.2, archname=i386-linux
    uname='linux duende 2.4.2 #1 fri mar 2 13:52:32 est 2001 i686 unknown '
    config_args='-Dccflags=-DDEBIAN -Darchname=i386-linux -Dprefix=/usr -Dprivlib=/usr/share/perl/5.6.0 -Darchlib=/usr/lib/perl/5.6.0 -Dvendorprefix=/usr -Dvendorlib=/usr/share/perl5 -Dvendorarch=/usr/lib/perl5 -Dsiteprefix=/usr/local -Dsitelib=/usr/local/share/perl/5.6.0 -Dsitearch=/usr/local/lib/perl/5.6.0 -Dman1dir=/usr/share/man/man1 -Dman3dir=/usr/share/man/man3 -Dman1ext=1 -Dman3ext=3perl -Dpager=/usr/bin/pager -Uafs -Ud_csh -Uusesfio -Duseshrplib -Dlibperl=libperl.so.5.6.0 -Dd_dosuid -des'
    hint=recommended, useposix=true, d_sigaction=define
    usethreads=undef use5005threads=undef useithreads=undef usemultiplicity=undef
    useperlio=undef d_sfio=undef uselargefiles=define 
    use64bitint=undef use64bitall=undef uselongdouble=undef usesocks=undef
  Compiler:
    cc='cc', optimize='-O2', gccversion=2.95.3 20010219 (prerelease)
    cppflags='-DDEBIAN -fno-strict-aliasing -I/usr/local/include'
    ccflags ='-DDEBIAN -fno-strict-aliasing -I/usr/local/include -D_LARGEFILE_SOURCE -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64'
    stdchar='char', d_stdstdio=define, usevfork=false
    intsize=4, longsize=4, ptrsize=4, doublesize=8
    d_longlong=define, longlongsize=8, d_longdbl=define, longdblsize=12
    ivtype='long', ivsize=4, nvtype='double', nvsize=8, Off_t='off_t', lseeksize=8
    alignbytes=4, usemymalloc=n, prototype=define
  Linker and Libraries:
    ld='cc', ldflags =' -L/usr/local/lib'
    libpth=/usr/local/lib /lib /usr/lib
    libs=-lnsl -ldl -lm -lc -lcrypt
    libc=/lib/libc-2.2.2.so, so=so, useshrplib=true, libperl=libperl.so.5.6.0
  Dynamic Linking:
    dlsrc=dl_dlopen.xs, dlext=so, d_dlsymun=undef, ccdlflags='-rdynamic'
    cccdlflags='-fPIC', lddlflags='-shared -L/usr/local/lib'

Locally applied patches:
    


@INC for perl v5.6.0:
    /usr/local/lib/perl/5.6.0
    /usr/local/share/perl/5.6.0
    /usr/lib/perl5
    /usr/share/perl5
    /usr/lib/perl/5.6.0
    /usr/share/perl/5.6.0
    /usr/local/lib/site_perl
    /usr/lib/perl5/5.6/i386-linux
    /usr/lib/perl5/5.6
    /usr/lib/perl5/5.005/i386-linux
    .


Environment for perl v5.6.0:
    HOME=/home/simon
    LANG (unset)
    LANGUAGE (unset)
    LD_LIBRARY_PATH (unset)
    LOGDIR (unset)
    PATH=/home/simon/bin:/bin:/usr/bin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/X11R6/bin:/usr/local/sbin:/usr/sbin:/sbin
    PERL_BADLANG (unset)
    SHELL=/usr/local/bin/zsh

From @chorny

Same result on 5.12.0.

On Sat Apr 21 23​:30​:11 2001, simon@​netthink.co.uk wrote​:

% ./perl -le '$a=do xa for ax;'
% ./perl -le 'do "xa" for ax;'
% ./perl -le 'do xa for ax;'
Missing $ on loop variable at -e line 1.
% ./perl -le 'do xa for "ax"'
% ./perl -le 'do xa for sin(1)'
Missing $ on loop variable at -e line 1.
% ./perl -le 'do xa for (sin(1))'

Get this​:
% ./perl -le 'do xa for "sin"'
% ./perl -le 'do xa for qq(sin)'
Missing $ on loop variable at -e line 1.
% ./perl -le 'do xa for my $a'
% ./perl -le 'do xa for my @​a'
Missing $ on loop variable at -e line 1.

The "Missing $" only happens for package/do/require/use followed by
bareword, and no other builtins, and where 'for' is followed by
anything other than /[$%@​("']/ or my/our $foo.

I can't see how it's getting that, because allowing "my" and "our"
with
a scalar suggests it's parsing "for" as the beginning of a statement,
but "for @​a" is not allowed at the beginning of a statement, and
Deparse
reports​:
% ./perl -Ilib -MO=Deparse -le 'do xa for my $a'

foreach $\_ \(my\($a\)\) \{
    do 'xa';
\}

--
Alexandr Ciornii, http​://chorny.net

From [Unknown Contact. See original ticket]

Same result on 5.12.0.

On Sat Apr 21 23​:30​:11 2001, simon@​netthink.co.uk wrote​:

% ./perl -le '$a=do xa for ax;'
% ./perl -le 'do "xa" for ax;'
% ./perl -le 'do xa for ax;'
Missing $ on loop variable at -e line 1.
% ./perl -le 'do xa for "ax"'
% ./perl -le 'do xa for sin(1)'
Missing $ on loop variable at -e line 1.
% ./perl -le 'do xa for (sin(1))'

Get this​:
% ./perl -le 'do xa for "sin"'
% ./perl -le 'do xa for qq(sin)'
Missing $ on loop variable at -e line 1.
% ./perl -le 'do xa for my $a'
% ./perl -le 'do xa for my @​a'
Missing $ on loop variable at -e line 1.

The "Missing $" only happens for package/do/require/use followed by
bareword, and no other builtins, and where 'for' is followed by
anything other than /[$%@​("']/ or my/our $foo.

I can't see how it's getting that, because allowing "my" and "our"
with
a scalar suggests it's parsing "for" as the beginning of a statement,
but "for @​a" is not allowed at the beginning of a statement, and
Deparse
reports​:
% ./perl -Ilib -MO=Deparse -le 'do xa for my $a'

foreach $\_ \(my\($a\)\) \{
    do 'xa';
\}

--
Alexandr Ciornii, http​://chorny.net

From @dcollinsn

In all versions 5.22.0 through blead, these testcases all produce no output. Is this the expected behavior? If so, I shall add a regression test.

From @cpansprout

On Mon Jul 04 08​:38​:28 2016, dcollinsn@​gmail.com wrote​:

In all versions 5.22.0 through blead, these testcases all produce no
output. Is this the expected behavior? If so, I shall add a regression
test.

That is the expected behaviour. I think I may have fixed this, in which case we may already have tests.

--

Father Chrysostomos

From @cpansprout

On Mon Jul 04 08​:57​:43 2016, sprout wrote​:

On Mon Jul 04 08​:38​:28 2016, dcollinsn@​gmail.com wrote​:

In all versions 5.22.0 through blead, these testcases all produce no
output. Is this the expected behavior? If so, I shall add a
regression
test.

That is the expected behaviour. I think I may have fixed this, in
which case we may already have tests.

A bisect gives me​:

c2900bb is the first bad commit
commit c2900bb
Author​: Father Chrysostomos <sprout@​cpan.org>
Date​: Mon Jul 2 18​:11​:23 2012 -0700

  do-file should not force a bareword
 
  A word following do is forced to be a bareword for do-sub’s sake. But
  if it is going to be interpreted as do-file after all, that does not
  make sense. ‘do subname;’ should call the sub and run the file whose
  name it returns, instead of running the file named ‘subname’.

so no, it is not tested.

I have no idea how that commit fixed it.

--

Father Chrysostomos

From @dcollinsn

On Mon Jul 04 14​:52​:53 2016, sprout wrote​:

On Mon Jul 04 08​:57​:43 2016, sprout wrote​:

On Mon Jul 04 08​:38​:28 2016, dcollinsn@​gmail.com wrote​:

In all versions 5.22.0 through blead, these testcases all produce no
output. Is this the expected behavior? If so, I shall add a
regression
test.

That is the expected behaviour. I think I may have fixed this, in
which case we may already have tests.

A bisect gives me​:

c2900bb is the first bad commit
commit c2900bb
Author​: Father Chrysostomos <sprout@​cpan.org>
Date​: Mon Jul 2 18​:11​:23 2012 -0700

do\-file should not force a bareword

A word following do is forced to be a bareword for do\-sub’s sake\.  But
if it is going to be interpreted as do\-file after all\, that does not
make sense\.  ‘do subname;’ should call the sub and run the file whose
name it returns\, instead of running the file named ‘subname’\.

so no, it is not tested.

I have no idea how that commit fixed it.

Tests added in 9c26033, closing.

--
Respectfully,
Dan Collins

From [Unknown Contact. See original ticket]

On Mon Jul 04 14​:52​:53 2016, sprout wrote​:

On Mon Jul 04 08​:57​:43 2016, sprout wrote​:

On Mon Jul 04 08​:38​:28 2016, dcollinsn@​gmail.com wrote​:

In all versions 5.22.0 through blead, these testcases all produce no
output. Is this the expected behavior? If so, I shall add a
regression
test.

That is the expected behaviour. I think I may have fixed this, in
which case we may already have tests.

A bisect gives me​:

c2900bb is the first bad commit
commit c2900bb
Author​: Father Chrysostomos <sprout@​cpan.org>
Date​: Mon Jul 2 18​:11​:23 2012 -0700

do\-file should not force a bareword

A word following do is forced to be a bareword for do\-sub’s sake\.  But
if it is going to be interpreted as do\-file after all\, that does not
make sense\.  ‘do subname;’ should call the sub and run the file whose
name it returns\, instead of running the file named ‘subname’\.

so no, it is not tested.

I have no idea how that commit fixed it.

Tests added in 9c26033, closing.

--
Respectfully,
Dan Collins

@dcollinsn - Status changed from 'open' to 'resolved'