hanged paths:
M v6d.pod
Log Message:
---
Revert "Forbid Bare C<\b> in Regexes"
This reverts commit b14828bb01abb7e659b9f1a4d43ba572d3a4f173.
Per discussion with pmichaud++, this can be added right now, without
waiting for 6.d:
https://github.
hanged paths:
M v6d.pod
Log Message:
---
Forbid Bare C<\b> in Regexes
Implementation to close RT#128986
Because of the the special significance of $a and $b in Perl 5's sort
comparison, I always avoid using the names in examples, lest it set a
booby-trap for later.
I've noticed "a" and "b' being used in some P6 examples. Are they no
longer significant, or are they just a poor choice of identifier?
sort accepts something callable with an arity of 2.
Subroutines, blocks and pointies will do:
say sort { $^a cmp $^b }, 5, 3, 2, 6, 4
OUTPUT«(2 3 4 5 6)»
say sort { $^left cmp $^right }, 5, 3, 2, 6, 4
OUTPUT«(2 3 4 5 6)»
say sort -> $a, $b { $a cmp $b }, 5, 3, 2, 6, 4
OUTPUT«(2 3 4
)
Changed paths:
M S04-control.pod
Log Message:
---
Prevent some confusion re a b c
)
Changed paths:
M S28-special-names.pod
Log Message:
---
Clarify lack of special meaning of $a,$b in Perl 6
Branch: refs/heads/master
Home: http://github.com/perl6/specs
Commit: a826b588b613ef61471e4d89c6b86d7f3502dcdb
http://github.com/perl6/specs/commit/a826b588b613ef61471e4d89c6b86d7f3502dcdb
Author: TimToady la...@wall.org
Date: 2010-09-06 (Mon, 06 Sep 2010)
Changed paths:
M
On Wed, 28 Jul 2010, Darren Duncan wrote:
I think that a general solution here is to accept that there may be more
than one valid way to sort some types, strings especially, and so
operators/routines that do sorting should be customizable in some way so
users can pick the behaviour they want.
Martin D Kealey wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jul 2010, Darren Duncan wrote:
I think that a general solution here is to accept that there may be more
than one valid way to sort some types, strings especially, and so
operators/routines that do sorting should be customizable in some way so
users can pick the
On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 11:39 PM, Martin D Kealey
mar...@kurahaupo.gen.nz wrote:
In any case I'd much rather prefer that the behaviour be lexically scoped,
with either adverbs or pragmata, not with the action-at-a-distance that's
caused by tagging something as fundamental as a String.
In many
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 7/29/10 08:15 , Leon Timmermans wrote:
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 3:24 AM, Darren Duncan dar...@darrenduncan.net
wrote:
$foo ~~ $a..$b :QuuxNationality # just affects this one test
I like that
$bar = 'hello' :QuuxNationality # applies
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 9:51 PM, Aaron Sherman a...@ajs.com wrote:
My only strongly held belief, here, is that you should not try to answer any
of these questions for the default range operator on
unadorned, context-less strings. For that case, you must do something that
makes sense for all
Please pardon intrusion by a novice who is anything but object oriented.
I consider myself a long time user of perl 5. I love it and it has completely
replaced FORTRAN as my compiler of choice. Programming Perl is so dog-eared
that I may need a replacement. I joined this list when I thought the
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 6:45 PM, Doug McNutt dougl...@macnauchtan.com wrote:
Please pardon intrusion by a novice who is anything but object oriented.
No problem. Sometimes a fresh perspective helps to illuminate things.
Skipping ahead...
Are you guise sure that the ... and .. operators in
Aaron Sherman wrote:
In the end, I'm now questioning the difference between a junction and
a Range... which is not where I thought this would go.
Conceptually, they're closely related. In particular, a range behaves
a lot like an any() junction. Some differences:
1. An any() junction always
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 10:35 PM, Brandon S Allbery KF8NH
allb...@ece.cmu.edu wrote:
On 7/28/10 8:07 PM, Michael Zedeler wrote:
On 2010-07-29 01:39, Jon Lang wrote:
Aaron Sherman wrote:
In smart-match context, a..b includes aardvark.
No one has yet explained to me why that makes sense
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 3:24 AM, Darren Duncan dar...@darrenduncan.net wrote:
Some possible examples of customization:
$foo ~~ $a..$b :QuuxNationality # just affects this one test
I like that
$bar = 'hello' :QuuxNationality # applies anywhere the Str value is used
What if you compare
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 5:15 AM, Leon Timmermans faw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 3:24 AM, Darren Duncan dar...@darrenduncan.net
wrote:
Some possible examples of customization:
$foo ~~ $a..$b :QuuxNationality # just affects this one test
I like that
$bar = 'hello
is that the most basic approach treats each codepoint as a
collection of information and sorts on that information first and then the
codepoint number itself. If that's not useful to you, tell Perl what you
really wanted.
Some possible examples of customization:
$foo ~~ $a..$b :QuuxNationality
On 2010-07-28 06:54, Martin D Kealey wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jul 2010, Michael Zedeler wrote:
Writing for ($a .. $b).reverse - $c { ...} may then blow up because it
turns out that $b doesn't have a .succ method when coercing to sequence
(where the LHS must have an initial value), just like
Michael Zedeler wrote:
This is exactly why I keep writing posts about Ranges being defunct as
they have been specified now. If we accept the premise that Ranges are
supposed to define a kind of linear membership specification between two
starting points (as in math), it doesn't make sense that
Michael Zedeler wrote:
This is exactly why I keep writing posts about Ranges being defunct as
they have been specified now. If we accept the premise that Ranges are
supposed to define a kind of linear membership specification between two
starting points (as in math), it doesn't make sense
of reversibility is moot.
No thanks; I'd prefer it if $a..$b have analogous meanings in item and
list contexts. As things stand, 10..1 means, in item context,
numbers that are greater or equal to ten and less than or equal to
one, which is equivalent to nothing; in list context, it means an
empty
Dave Whipp wrote:
To squint at this slightly, in the context that we already have 0...1e10
as a sequence generator, perhaps the semantics of iterating a range
should be unordered -- that is,
for 0..10 - $x { ... }
is treated as
for (0...10).pick(*) - $x { ... }
Sorry, I have
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 8:34 AM, Dave Whipp d...@dave.whipp.name wrote:
To squint at this slightly, in the context that we already have 0...1e10 as
a sequence generator, perhaps the semantics of iterating a range should be
unordered -- that is,
for 0..10 - $x { ... }
is treated as
for
yary wrote:
though would a parallel batch of an anonymous block be more naturally written
as
all(0...10) - $x { ... } # Spawn 11 threads
No,
hyper for 0..10 - $x { ... } # spawn as many threads
# as the compiler thinks are reasonable
I think one (already specced) syntax for the
On Wednesday, 28. July 2010 05:12:52 Michael Zedeler wrote:
Writing ($a .. $b).reverse doesn't make any sense if the result were a
new Range, since Ranges should then only be used for inclusion tests (so
swapping endpoints doesn't have any meaningful interpretation), but
applying .reverse
Swapping the endpoints could mean swapping inside test to outside
test. The only thing that is needed is to swap from to ||:
$a .. $b # means $a = $_ $_ = $b if $a $b
$b .. $a # means $b = $_ || $_ = $a if $a $b
I think that's what not, ! are for!
TSa wrote:
Swapping the endpoints could mean swapping inside test to outside
test. The only thing that is needed is to swap from to ||:
$a .. $b # means $a = $_ $_ = $b if $a $b
$b .. $a # means $b = $_ || $_ = $a if $a $b
This is the same sort of discontinuity of meaning
On Wednesday, July 28, 2010, Jon Lang datawea...@gmail.com wrote:
Keep it simple, folks! There are enough corner cases in Perl 6 as
things stand; we don't need to be introducing more of them if we can
help it.
Can I get an Amen? Amen!
--
Mark J. Reed markjr...@gmail.com
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Chris Fields cjfie...@illinois.edu wrote:
On Jul 28, 2010, at 1:27 PM, Mark J. Reed wrote:
Can I get an Amen? Amen!
--
Mark J. Reed markjr...@gmail.com
+1. I'm agnostic ;
Militant? :) ( http://tinyurl.com/3xjgxnl )
Nothing inherently religious about
Moritz Lenz wrote:
Dave Whipp wrote:
for 0..10 - $x { ... }
is treated as
for (0...10).pick(*) - $x { ... }
Sorry, I have to ask. Are you serious? Really?
Ah, to reply, or not to reply, to rhetorical sarcasm ... In this case, I
think I will:
Was my specific proposal entirely
Dave Whipp wrote:
Moritz Lenz wrote:
Dave Whipp wrote:
for 0..10 - $x { ... }
is treated as
for (0...10).pick(*) - $x { ... }
Sorry, I have to ask. Are you serious? Really?
Ah, to reply, or not to reply, to rhetorical sarcasm ... In this case, I
think I will:
No sarcasm
Moritz Lenz wrote:
I fear what Perl 6 needs is not to broaden the range of discussion even
further, but to narrow it down to the essential points. Personal opinion
only.
OK, as a completely serious proposal, the semantics of for 0..10 { ...
} should be for the compiler to complain sorry,
that .. must behave totally unlike any other
iterator.
Getting back to 10..0...
The complexity of implementation argument doesn't really hold for me, as:
(a..b).list = ab ?? a,*.pred ... b !! a,*.succ ... b
Is pretty darned simple and does not require that b implement anything more
than it does
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Aaron Sherman a...@ajs.com wrote:
The more I look at this, the more I think .. and ... are reversed. ..
has a very specific and narrow usage (comparing ranges) and ... is
probably going to be the most broadly used operator in the language outside
of quotes,
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 11:29 PM, Aaron Sherman a...@ajs.com wrote:
The more I look at this, the more I think .. and ... are reversed. ..
has a very specific and narrow usage (comparing ranges) and ... is
probably going to be the most broadly used operator in the language outside
of quotes,
with intervals and ... with generators. The
mnemonics make more sense that way. Having .. resemble the math op with the
same meaning, intervals, is a good thing. Besides comparing ranges, an interval
would also often be used for a membership test, eg $a = $x = $b would
alternately be spelled $x ~~ $a..$b
Darren Duncan wrote:
Aaron Sherman wrote:
The more I look at this, the more I think .. and ... are reversed.
snip
I would rather that .. stay with intervals and ... with generators.
snip
Another thing to consider if one is looking at huffmanization is how often the
versions that exclude
then every item you pick will have an infinite number of digits/characters.
In smart-match context, a..b includes aardvark. It follows that,
unless you're filtering/shaping the sequence of generated items, then
almost every element (a..b).Seq starts with an infinite number of as.
Consistent
Dave Whipp wrote:
Similarly (0..1).Seq should most likely return Real numbers
No it shouldn't, because the endpoints are integers.
If you want Real numbers, then say 0.0 .. 1.0 instead.
-- Darren Duncan
Darren Duncan wrote:
Dave Whipp wrote:
Similarly (0..1).Seq should most likely return Real numbers
No it shouldn't, because the endpoints are integers.
If you want Real numbers, then say 0.0 .. 1.0 instead.
-- Darren Duncan
That would be inconsistent. $x ~~ 0..1 means 0 = $x = 1. The fact
in
failure? Sorry, not following.
In smart-match context, a..b includes aardvark.
No one has yet explained to me why that makes sense. The continued use of
ASCII examples, of course, doesn't help. Does a .. b include æther?
This is where Germans and Swedes, for example, don't agree, but they're
in
failure? Sorry, not following.
In smart-match context, a..b includes aardvark.
No one has yet explained to me why that makes sense. The continued use of
ASCII examples, of course, doesn't help. Does a .. b include æther?
This is where Germans and Swedes, for example, don't agree, but they're
Darren Duncan wrote:
Does ... also come with the 4 variations of endpoint inclusion/exclusion?
If not, then it should, as I'm sure many times one would want to do this,
say:
for 0...^$n - {...}
You can toggle the inclusion/exclusion of the ending condition by
choosing between ... and ...^;
Aaron Sherman wrote:
In smart-match context, a..b includes aardvark.
No one has yet explained to me why that makes sense. The continued use of
ASCII examples, of course, doesn't help. Does a .. b include æther?
This is where Germans and Swedes, for example, don't agree, but they're all
problems. If you pick items from an infinite set
then every item you pick will have an infinite number of
digits/characters.
In smart-match context, a..b includes aardvark. It follows that,
unless you're filtering/shaping the sequence of generated items, then
almost every element (a..b).Seq starts
On 2010-07-29 01:39, Jon Lang wrote:
Aaron Sherman wrote:
In smart-match context, a..b includes aardvark.
No one has yet explained to me why that makes sense. The continued use of
ASCII examples, of course, doesn't help. Does a .. b include æther?
This is where Germans and Swedes
Michael Zedeler wrote:
Jon Lang wrote:
This is definitely something for the Unicode crowd to look into. But
whatever solution you come up with, please make it compatible with the
notion that aardvark..apple can be used to match any word in the
dictionary that comes between those two words.
On Jul 28, 2010, at 1:37 PM, Mark J. Reed wrote:
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Chris Fields cjfie...@illinois.edu wrote:
On Jul 28, 2010, at 1:27 PM, Mark J. Reed wrote:
Can I get an Amen? Amen!
--
Mark J. Reed markjr...@gmail.com
+1. I'm agnostic ;
Militant? :) (
On Jul 28, 2010, at 1:27 PM, Mark J. Reed wrote:
On Wednesday, July 28, 2010, Jon Lang datawea...@gmail.com wrote:
Keep it simple, folks! There are enough corner cases in Perl 6 as
things stand; we don't need to be introducing more of them if we can
help it.
Can I get an Amen? Amen!
--
On 2010-07-29 02:19, Jon Lang wrote:
Michael Zedeler wrote:
Jon Lang wrote:
This is definitely something for the Unicode crowd to look into. But
whatever solution you come up with, please make it compatible with the
notion that aardvark..apple can be used to match any word in the
that abstraction level as value metadata.
When you want to be consistent, the behaviour of cmp affects all of the other
order-sensitive operations, including any working with intervals.
Some possible examples of customization:
$foo ~~ $a..$b :QuuxNationality # just affects this one test
$bar = 'hello
On 7/28/10 8:07 PM, Michael Zedeler wrote:
On 2010-07-29 01:39, Jon Lang wrote:
Aaron Sherman wrote:
In smart-match context, a..b includes aardvark.
No one has yet explained to me why that makes sense. The continued
use of
ASCII examples, of course, doesn't help. Does a .. b include
æther
it more
obvious than most.
That means that Range.reverse has to do something special that iterators in
general can't be relied on to do. Does that introduce problems? Not big
ones. I can definitely see people who are used to for ($a .. $b).reverse -
... getting confused when for @blah.reverse
Aaron Sherman wrote:
As a special case, perhaps you can treat ranges as special and not as simple
iterators. To be honest, I wasn't thinking about the possibility of such
special cases, but about iterators in general. You can't generically reverse
lazy constructs without running afoul of the
On 2010-07-27 23:50, Aaron Sherman wrote:
PS: On a really abstract note, requiring that ($a .. $b).reverse be lazy
will put new constraints on the right hand side parameter. Previously, it
didn't have to have a value of its own, it just had to be comparable to
other values. for example
- $i {...} should *not* be lazy.
After all, Perl 5 now implements
@b = reverse sort @a
by directly sorting in reverse. Note how it's now an ex-reverse:
$ perl -MO=Concise -e '@b = reverse sort @a'
c @ leave[1 ref] vKP/REFC -(end)
1 0 enter -2
2 ; nextstate(main 1 -e:1) v -3
b 2
Jon Lang writes:
Approaching this with the notion firmly in mind that infix:.. is
supposed to be used for matching ranges while infix:... should be
used to generate series:
With series, we want C $LHS ... $RHS to generate a list of items
starting with $LHS and ending with $RHS. If $RHS
Smylers wrote:
Jon Lang writes:
Approaching this with the notion firmly in mind that infix:.. is
supposed to be used for matching ranges while infix:... should be
used to generate series:
With series, we want C $LHS ... $RHS to generate a list of items
starting with $LHS and ending with
Ok, I find that surprising (and counter to current Rakudo behavior),
but thanks for the correction, and sorry about the misinformation.
On Wednesday, July 21, 2010, Larry Wall la...@wall.org wrote:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 11:53:27PM -0400, Mark J. Reed wrote:
: In particular, consider that pi
Strike the counter to current Rakudo behavior bit; Rakudo is
behaving as specified in this instance. I must have been
hallucinating.
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 7:33 AM, Mark J. Reed markjr...@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, I find that surprising (and counter to current Rakudo behavior),
but thanks for the
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 09:23:11AM -0400, Mark J. Reed wrote:
: Strike the counter to current Rakudo behavior bit; Rakudo is
: behaving as specified in this instance. I must have been
: hallucinating.
Well, except that we both neglected precedence. Since ... is looser
than ~~, it must be
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 1:28 AM, Aaron Sherman a...@ajs.com wrote:
For reference, this is the relevant section of the spec:
Character positions are incremented within their natural range for any
Unicode range that is deemed to represent the digits 0..9 or that is deemed
to be a complete
Larry Wall wrote:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 11:53:27PM -0400, Mark J. Reed wrote:
: In particular, consider that pi ~~ 0..4 is true,
: because pi is within the range; but pi ~~ 0...4 is false, because pi
: is not one of the generated elements.
Small point here, it's not because pi is fractional:
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Darren Duncan dar...@darrenduncan.net wrote:
Larry Wall wrote:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 11:53:27PM -0400, Mark J. Reed wrote:
: In particular, consider that pi ~~ 0..4 is true,
: because pi is within the range; but pi ~~ 0...4 is false, because pi
: is not
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 7:31 PM, Aaron Sherman a...@ajs.com wrote:
2) We deny that a range whose LHS is larger than its RHS makes sense, but
we also don't provide an easy way to construct such ranges lazily otherwise.
This would be annoying only, but then we have declared that ranges are the
Solomon Foster wrote:
Ranges haven't been intended to be the right way to construct basic
loops for some time now. That's what the ... series operator is
for.
for 1e10 ... 1 - $i {
# whatever
}
is lazy by the spec, and in fact is lazy and fully functional in
Rakudo.
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 10:00 PM, Jon Lang datawea...@gmail.com wrote:
Solomon Foster wrote:
Ranges haven't been intended to be the right way to construct basic
loops for some time now. That's what the ... series operator is
for.
for 1e10 ... 1 - $i {
# whatever
}
is lazy
Side note: you could get around some of the problems, below, but in order to
do so, you would have to exhaustively express all of Unicode using the Str
builtin module's RANGES constant. In fact, as it is now, it defines ASCII
lowercase, but doesn't define Latin lowercase. Presumably because doing
Approaching this with the notion firmly in mind that infix:.. is
supposed to be used for matching ranges while infix:... should be
used to generate series:
Aaron Sherman wrote:
Walk with me a bit, and let's explore the concept of intuitive character
ranges? This was my suggestion, which seems
Aaron Sherman wrote:
So, what's the intention of the range operator, then? Is it just there to
offer backward compatibility with Perl 5? Is it a vestige that should be
removed so that we can Huffman ... down to ..?
I'm not trying to be difficult, here, I just never knew that ... could
Mark J. Reed wrote:
Perhaps the syllabic kana could be the integer analogs, and what you
get when you iterate over the range using ..., while the modifier kana
would not be generated by the series ア ... ヴ but would be considered
in the range ア .. ヴ? I wouldn't object to such script-specific
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 12:04 AM, Jon Lang datawea...@gmail.com wrote:
Mark J. Reed wrote:
Perhaps the syllabic kana could be the integer analogs, and what you
get when you iterate over the range using ..., while the modifier kana
would not be generated by the series ア ... ヴ but would be
for me.
3) It seems that there are two competing multi-character approaches and both
seem somewhat valid. Should we use a pragma to toggle behavior between A and
B:
A: aa .. bb contains az
B: aa .. bb contains ONLY aa, ab, ba and bb
4) About the ranges I gave as examples, you asked:
Which
.
3) It seems that there are two competing multi-character approaches and both
seem somewhat valid. Should we use a pragma to toggle behavior between A and
B:
A: aa .. bb contains az
B: aa .. bb contains ONLY aa, ab, ba and bb
I would find A to be the only reasonable answer.
If you want B's
Darren Duncan wrote:
specific, the generic eqv operator, or before etc would have to be
Correction, I meant to say cmp, not eqv, here. -- Darren Duncan
Ruud H.G. van Tol wrote:
Aaron Sherman wrote:
Having established this range for each correspondingly indexed letter, the
range for multi-character strings is defined by a left-significant counting
sequence. For example:
Ab .. Be
defines the ranges:
A B and b c d e
This results
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 9:40 PM, Michael Zedeler mich...@zedeler.dk wrote:
What started it all, was the intention to extend the operator, making it
possible to evaluate it in list context. Doing so has opened pandoras box,
because many (most? all?) solutions are inconsistent with the rule of
Aaron Sherman wrote:
Having established this range for each correspondingly indexed letter, the
range for multi-character strings is defined by a left-significant counting
sequence. For example:
Ab .. Be
defines the ranges:
A B and b c d e
This results in a counting sequence (with the most
with respect to
its correspondingly indexed character in the other string the following
algorithm is applied to determine the range that they represent (the LHS
character is referred to as A, below and the RHS as B)
The binary Unicode general category properties of A and B are considered
from the set
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Aaron Sherman a...@ajs.com wrote:
For example:
Ab .. Be
defines the ranges:
A B and b c d e
This results in a counting sequence (with the most significant character on
the left) as follows:
Ab Ac Ad Ae Bb Bc Bd Be
Currently, Rakudo produces this:
Ab
Aaron ():
[...]
Many useful results from this suggested change:
C .. A = C B A (Rakudo: )
Regardless of the other traits of your proposed semantics, I think
permitting reversed ranges such as the one above would be a mistake.
Rakudo gives the empty list for ranges whose lhs exceeds (fsvo
within some very strict definitions (identical
Unicode general category, increasing, etc.) So the following:
A .. z
produces very odd results.
I'd like to suggest that we re-define this operator on strings as follows:
[cut]
Ab .. Be
defines the ranges:
A B andb c d e
This results in a counting
Aaron Sherman wrote:
Oh bother, I wrote this up last night, but forgot to send it. Here y'all
go:
I've been testing .. recently, and it seems, in Rakudo, to behave like
Perl 5. That is, the magic auto-increment for a .. z works very
wonkily,
given any range that isn't within some very
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 1:14 PM, yary not@gmail.com wrote:
There is one case where Rakudo's current output makes more sense then
your proposal, and that's when the sequence is analogous to a range of
numbers in another base, and you don't want to start at the equivalent
of '' or end
I just reread the table of smart matches in Synopsis 4, and I realized
that it doesn't say what is returned by a ~~ b. For example, the first line
of this table says
$_ $xType of Match ImpliedMatching Code
has entered CPAN as
file: $CPAN/authors/id/B/BR/BRENTDAX/Perl6-Parameters-0.03.tar.gz
size: 4414 bytes
md5: b73bee5737bf35ac3c0e00ebbf8cd3c8
Larry Wall wrote in perl.perl6.language :
Such a grammar switching routine could operate either over a lexical
scope or over the rest of the file. The only restriction is that
one module not clobber the grammar of a different module.
Basically, we're trying to make the opposite mistake
At 2:34 PM -0700 4/5/02, Luke Palmer wrote:
You can do anything you like if you mess with the parser. Changing
the rules for recognizing an identifier would be trivial.
Does this refer to messing with the parser... compile time (that is, when
Perl compiles, not when Perl is compiled)? Or
Rafael Garcia-Suarez writes:
: Larry Wall wrote in perl.perl6.language :
:
: Such a grammar switching routine could operate either over a lexical
: scope or over the rest of the file. The only restriction is that
: one module not clobber the grammar of a different module.
:
: Basically,
Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Rafael Garcia-Suarez writes:
: Larry Wall wrote in perl.perl6.language :
:
: Such a grammar switching routine could operate either over a lexical
: scope or over the rest of the file. The only restriction is that
: one module not clobber the
Piers Cawley writes:
: In a use.perl post not far away I sketched out something like the following:
:
: module foo is Mixin {
:
: sub category($category, block) {
: block.abstract_syntax_tree.walk_with - $node {
: when AST::Method {
:
Dan Sugalski wrote in perl.perl6.language :
Don't forget, we already change parsing rules at compile time. Perl's
got three (maybe four) different sets of rules as it is:
*) Normal perl
*) Regexes
*) Double-quoted strings
*) Single-quoted strings
Adding another, or
Larry Wall wrote :
It's not clear that the lexer is a separate entity any more. Lexers
were originally invented as a way of abstracting out part of the
grammar so that it could be done in a separate pass, and to simplify
the grammar for the poor overworked parser.
Indeed. Another benefit
Just some thoughts in case you assumed people would only us Perl for
good.
$_='opcpez/xsjuft/qzax/,kvtu/gps/hppe!'
;szaxfsmyb-z,/!a-y !-print;
?
:
: It's utf8ical, actually.
:
: That should be Unicodely, I expect. But strict unicode sorting, or do
: we respect the locale?
Strict, but doesn't really matter. Nobody sane will use anything other
than $^a and $^b.
Well Are we allowing non-latin characters in identifiers? There
may
Dan Sugalski writes:
: Strict, but doesn't really matter. Nobody sane will use anything other
: than $^a and $^b.
:
: Well Are we allowing non-latin characters in identifiers? There
: may be potential interesting ramifications with those. Kanji
: specifically, though I don't have details
Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dan Sugalski writes:
: Strict, but doesn't really matter. Nobody sane will use anything other
: than $^a and $^b.
:
: Well Are we allowing non-latin characters in identifiers? There
: may be potential interesting ramifications with those. Kanji
Piers Cawley writes:
: Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
:
: Dan Sugalski writes:
: : Strict, but doesn't really matter. Nobody sane will use anything other
: : than $^a and $^b.
: :
: : Well Are we allowing non-latin characters in identifiers? There
: : may be potential
1 - 100 of 194 matches
Mail list logo
