On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 06:50:03PM +0100, Paul LeoNerd Evans wrote:
package Parse::Reversable;
I'm suddenly not so sure on the name any more...
It's not just parsing, it's not just interpolation. It's both. To name
it after one of these operations ignores the other.
So I think somewhere under
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 01:31:02PM +0100, Paul LeoNerd Evans wrote:
String::ParsableInterpolable
Surely we can do better than that?
Actually, I'm not even sure on the parsable part now. Parsing would
imply some sort of possibly-recursive, context-aware grammar system.
This is much simpler -
Paul LeoNerd Evans wrote:
No, I think at this point we have to appeal to the core reason for
creating this module in the first place; namely, that it is
bidirectional. Parsing a string into variables, or interpolating the
variables back into a string. Both can be done within one object,
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 04:18:11PM +0200, Sébastien Aperghis-Tramoni wrote:
If the main objects your module will manipulate still are URIs, maybe
it should be in the URI:: namespace. And couldn't the bidirectional
relation you want to create be seen like a mapping? Hence URI::Mapper
or
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 04:01:10PM +0100, Andy Armstrong wrote:
Text::Transform::Reversible ?
Transform is too generic.. text goes in, other text goes out... That
doesn't capture the essence of pattern matching (no pun intended :) ).
--
Paul LeoNerd Evans
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ICQ# 4135350
* Paul LeoNerd Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-04-24 14:35]:
It's not just parsing, it's not just interpolation. It's both.
To name it after one of these operations ignores the other.
So I think somewhere under either Text:: or String:: might be
better.
String::Template?
Regards,
--
On 24 Apr 2007, at 18:07, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
So I think somewhere under either Text:: or String:: might be
better.
String::Template?
String::Template::Reversible maybe? String::Template sounds like a
namespace rather than a module.
--
Andy Armstrong, hexten.net
* Andy Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-04-24 19:15]:
String::Template::Reversible maybe? String::Template sounds
like a namespace rather than a module.
I don’t know what it means for something to “sound like a
namespace.” :-)
Also, I think of templates as generally reversible anyway.
Think
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 07:30:56PM +0200, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
I don’t know what it means for something to “sound like a
namespace.” :-)
Also, I think of templates as generally reversible anyway.
Think of printf/scanf, strftime/strptime, URI::Template,
etc. String templates often go both
* Paul LeoNerd Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-04-24 19:40]:
Also, String::Template sounds too much like Text::Template,
which it isn't really.. It's a totally different idea.
Not to me. “Text” to means a document (or some arbitrarily small
unit of a document) that has meaning to a human. A
On Tue, April 24, 2007 11:05 am, Paul LeoNerd Evans said:
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 04:01:10PM +0100, Andy Armstrong wrote:
Text::Transform::Reversible ?
Transform is too generic.. text goes in, other text goes out... That
doesn't capture the essence of pattern matching (no pun intended :) ).
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 14:20:40 -0400 (EDT)
Daniel T. Staal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about Text::Transform::ReversiblePattern ?
Or even just Text::ReversiblePattern ?
Daniel T. Staal
I am tempted by that, but I would prefer it in the String:: space; as
A. Pagaltzis points out below;
12 matches
Mail list logo
