How do C and C differ with respect to backtracking? For instance,
foobar ~~ / [a..z]+ [ ... ] /;
Both sides of the C happen in parallel, so I would guess that they
both match foo then stop. Please correct me if that's wrong.
Were we using the procedural conjunction:
foobar ~~ /
Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
How do C and C differ with respect to backtracking? For instance,
foobar ~~ / [a..z]+ [ ... ] /;
Both sides of the C happen in parallel, so I would guess that they
both match foo then stop. Please correct me if that's wrong.
As written, this match would
On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 01:25:12PM -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
: Were we using the procedural conjunction:
:
: foobar ~~ / [a..z]+ [ ... ] /;
:
: I would guess that the LHS matches as much as it can (foobar), then
: the RHS matches foo [...and then backtracks the LHS until a
:
On Thu, 2007-09-06 at 12:37 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
Yow. ICATBW.
The what now?
-'f
So 'orelse' is exactly like '//', except that the result of the left
side gets passed to the right side as an error message. Is there a
reason to make this exception, as opposed to altering '//' to behave
exactly like 'orelse' does?
--
Jonathan Dataweaver Lang
On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 12:37:37PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 01:25:12PM -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
: On a somewhat similar question, what happens with a pattern
: such as
:
: foobar ~~ / foo.+? | fooba /
:
: The LHS initially matches foob, but with
On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 01:40:20PM -0700, Jonathan Lang wrote:
: So 'orelse' is exactly like '//', except that the result of the left
: side gets passed to the right side as an error message. Is there a
: reason to make this exception, as opposed to altering '//' to behave
: exactly like 'orelse'
On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 03:49:42PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 04:02:19PM -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
: : I agree. One thought I had was that perhaps non-greedy matching
: : could also terminate the token prefix.
:
: Well, that's more or less arguing it the other way.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: larry
Date: Thu Sep 6 09:31:16 2007
New Revision: 14447
+
+C infix:andthen , proceed on success
+
+test1() andthen test2()
+
+Returns the left argument if the left argument indicates failure
+(that is, if the result is undefined). Otherwise it
+evaluates
Author: larry
Date: Thu Sep 6 17:12:02 2007
New Revision: 14449
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S05.pod
Log:
old ?foo is now +foo to suppress capture
new ?foo now is zero-width like !foo
clarifications on backtracking and longest-token semantics
minimal quantifiers are now considered to
Larry Wall wrote:
Jonathan Lang wrote:
: So 'orelse' is exactly like '//', except that the result of the left
: side gets passed to the right side as an error message. Is there a
: reason to make this exception, as opposed to altering '//' to behave
: exactly like 'orelse' does?
How 'bout,
Author: larry
Date: Thu Sep 6 20:56:39 2007
New Revision: 14453
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod
Log:
fixed it right this time...
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod
==
--- doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod
Author: larry
Date: Thu Sep 6 20:50:04 2007
New Revision: 14452
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod
Log:
extra \ found by sunnavy++
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod
==
--- doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod
Author: larry
Date: Thu Sep 6 20:36:26 2007
New Revision: 14451
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod
Log:
typo spotted by sunnavy++
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod
==
--- doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod
On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 08:32:55PM -0400, Joe Gottman wrote:
: Do the results of andthen and orelse really bind to ANY arguments of
: the second block? If the second block has two parameters it makes more
: sense to me for the results to bind to the first parameter and nothing
: to bind to
Author: larry
Date: Thu Sep 6 19:29:21 2007
New Revision: 14450
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S05.pod
Log:
typo from [particle]++
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S05.pod
==
--- doc/trunk/design/syn/S05.pod
On 9/6/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
@@ -1254,6 +1273,17 @@
=item *
+A leading C? indicates a positive zero-width assertion, and like C!
+merely reparses the rest of the assertion recursively as if the C?
+were not there. In addition to forcing zero-width, it also
On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 04:02:19PM -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
: I agree. One thought I had was that perhaps non-greedy matching
: could also terminate the token prefix.
Well, that's more or less arguing it the other way. It kind of assumes
your fooba-ish arguments are smart enough to test
18 matches
Mail list logo
