Dan Sugalski wrote:
I expect we'd want to have some sort of heavy-duty regex optimizer, then,
to detect common prefixes and subexpressions and suchlike things, otherwise
we end up with a rather monstrous alternation sequence...
We need a regex merge function too -- then we could write macros
Larry Wall wrote:
Dan Sugalski writes:
: At 10:35 AM 8/19/00 +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
: However, for Perl 6 I'd really like to see run-time access to the
: Real Tokenizer (tm):
:
: use tokenizer;
:
: my $tree = tokenizer( $sourcecode );
:
: This would be dead
At 11:18 AM 8/23/00 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
Dan Sugalski writes:
: At 10:35 AM 8/19/00 +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
: However, for Perl 6 I'd really like to see run-time access to the
: Real Tokenizer (tm):
:
: use tokenizer;
:
: my $tree = tokenizer( $sourcecode );
:
: This
Randal L. Schwartz writes:
: "Joe" == Joe McMahon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
:
: Joe This is done by using SNOBOL's dynamic function evaluation and
: Joe conditional assignment during a pattern match. To do this kind of
: Joe thing in Perl, we'd need to be able to match a substring, and
: Joe
Randal L. Schwartz writes:
Joe thing in Perl, we'd need to be able to match a substring, and
Joe then call an arbitrary function in the middle of a pattern match,
Joe and to back out the call if the match failed.
Already done in 5.6. :) "perldoc perlre".
Anyone who has actually tried to
David L. Nicol wrote:
RFC: It's all exception handling. I imagine the core syntax description
as a set of catch clauses. Every token generates a "TOKEN-$whatever"
exception, which is caught according to the current situation. How's
that for a general paradigm? These things can be
Dan Sugalski writes:
: At 10:35 AM 8/19/00 +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
: However, for Perl 6 I'd really like to see run-time access to the
: Real Tokenizer (tm):
:
: use tokenizer;
:
: my $tree = tokenizer( $sourcecode );
:
: This would be dead handy for building source-code
I was wondering this morning whether we ought to write the Perl 6
parser as a set of recursive regexes.
That would also solve one of my nagging headaches:
RFC XXX: Parse::RecDescent 2.0 *is* Perl 6.0
Of course, then we'd have to have Perl 6 out "by Christmas"!
;-)
Damian
"Bryan C. Warnock" wrote:
On Fri, 18 Aug 2000, David L. Nicol wrote:
There will Be No Perl7
Of course not. Odd numbers are the development releases. The next
Perl after 6 will be 8.
So maybe the reference implementation should be written in perl 4. Did
perl 4 have references? Doing
: Text::Balanced has to track in order to parse almost any Perl code.
It's a good thing you said "almost".
Ah, that Jesuit education finally pays off! ;-)
Does it parse [*]] correctly?
No, but only because Cextract_variable ignores punctuation vars entirely.
It would be a
Nathan Torkington wrote:
Exporter is pure Perl, but
I'd love to see its functionality moved into the core (or, indeed,
replaced by a general compile-time interface setup with separate
runtime execution semantics) for speed reasons.
Anyone RFC'ing this yet?
This time I'm *not*
Nathan Torkington wrote:
David L. Nicol writes:
RFC: Perl6 is Final. There will Be No Perl7
We declare that our framework willbe so flexiblke
that anything can be done with it and there will be no penalty
for something being in-core opposed to out-of-core and so on.
Bad
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: Bare C/.../ and bare C?...? *are* the main culprits. They require
: the tokenizer to track expression semantics so that when it encounters a
: '/' or '?' it can tell whether a pattern is plausible in this place or
: whether they've reached a division or hook operator,
Jeremy Howard wrote:
Steve Fink writes:
And both those examples apply to the underpinnings. Ok, maybe I have an
unusually broad definition of the word "underpinnings". Think "anything
that can't be done with a pure perl module".
Say "anything that can't be done *fast*enough* with
Stephen P. Potter writes:
* The match operator, Cm, is always required (bare C// becomes a fatal
error).
I could live with that. Damian's done some work trying to tokenize
Perl and knows what the weird edge cases are. Damian, can you post
your short list?
* Replace Cm//, Ctr///, and
On Fri, 18 Aug 2000, David L. Nicol wrote:
There will Be No Perl7
Of course not. Odd numbers are the development releases. The next
Perl after 6 will be 8.
Seriously, while a worthwhile goal, this is rather short-sighted.
The industry and the world will continue to change in spite (or
Steve Fink writes:
And both those examples apply to the underpinnings. Ok, maybe I have an
unusually broad definition of the word "underpinnings". Think "anything
that can't be done with a pure perl module".
Say "anything that can't be done *fast*enough* with a pure perl module" and
David L. Nicol writes:
RFC: Perl6 is Final. There will Be No Perl7
We declare that our framework willbe so flexiblke
that anything can be done with it and there will be no penalty
for something being in-core opposed to out-of-core and so on.
Bad idea. You can't make anything
Steve Fink writes:
And both those examples apply to the underpinnings. Ok, maybe I have an
unusually broad definition of the word "underpinnings". Think "anything
that can't be done with a pure perl module".
I'm not wild about that metric, either. Exporter is pure Perl, but
I'd love to see
Nathan Torkington wrote:
Steve Fink writes:
We are NOT here to construct a radically better language. We are here to
design the underpinnings of one.
Perhaps. And by "perhaps", I mean "no".
We're here to say what we'd like to see in the next version of Perl.
These can be big things
Nathan Torkington writes:
: Steve Fink writes:
: We are NOT here to construct a radically better language. We are here to
: design the underpinnings of one.
:
: Perhaps. And by "perhaps", I mean "no".
:
: We're here to say what we'd like to see in the next version of Perl.
: These can be big
On Thu, Aug 17, 2000 at 01:07:30PM -0400, Stephen P. Potter wrote:
* Replace Cm//, Ctr///, and Cs/// with equivalent regularized
functions that take mulitple arguments instead of using specialized
syntax. It would be best if the names could be more "complete", like
match(),
[replying from here since this is the only way I received it]
"Myers, Dirk" wrote:
$line/pattern/ ;
/pattern/ ($line) ;
I don't think these should be changed. Here's how I tend to pronouce
things:
$x = 'foo'; # "x gets foo"
/bar/;# "match on bar"
$x =~
On Thu, Aug 17, 2000 at 01:07:30PM -0400, Stephen P. Potter wrote:
* Replace Cm//, Ctr///, and Cs/// with equivalent regularized
functions that take mulitple arguments instead of using specialized
syntax. It would be best if the names could be more "complete", like
match(),
"SPP" == Stephen P Potter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
SPP * The match operator, Cm, is always required (bare C//
SPP becomes a fatal error).
maybe
SPP * Replace C?? with flag to Cm//, and remove special meaning
SPP of Cm??.
yes
SPP * Socket functions (such as Caccept, Cbind, etc)
25 matches
Mail list logo
