HaloO,
Gaal Yahas wrote:
In pugs, r7961:
my @pats = /1/, /2/;
say MATCH if 1 ~~ any @pats; # MATCH
say MATCH if 0 ~~ any @pats; # no match
So far so good. But:
my $junc = any @pats;
say MATCH if 1 ~~ $junc; # no match
say MATCH if 0 ~~ $junc; # no match
Bug?
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 12:08:08PM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 07:57:59PM +0100, Ruud H.G. van Tol wrote:
: There is a [[:alpha:][:digit:] and a [[:alpha:][:digit]] on the
: A5-page.
Hmm, well, thanks--I went to fix it and I see Patrick beat me to
the fix. But in one
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 09:02:57AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
: There's also sp, unless someone redefines the sp subrule.
But you can't use sp in a character class. Well, that is, unless
you write it:
+[ a..z ]+sp
or some such. Maybe that's good enough.
Er, that's now +[ a..z ]+sp,
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 07:57:59PM +0100, Ruud H.G. van Tol wrote:
There is a [[:alpha:][:digit:] and a [[:alpha:][:digit]] on the
A5-page.
Now fixed.
Besides, you have to be able to distinguish
s/^/foo/ from s/$/foo/.
's/$/foo/' becomes 's/after .*/foo/'
g
Uh, no, because after is
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 11:19:48PM +0100, Ruud H.G. van Tol wrote:
Patrick R. Michaud:
's/$/foo/' becomes 's/after .*/foo/'
g
Uh, no, because after is still a zero width assertion. :-)
That's why I chose it. It is not at the end-of-string?
Because .* matches , /after .*/ would be
On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 01:09:40AM +0100, Ruud H.G. van Tol wrote:
's/$/foo/' becomes 's/after .*/foo/'
Uh, no, because after is still a zero width assertion. :-)
That's why I chose it. It is not at the end-of-string?
Because .* matches , /after .*/ would be true at
every position
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005, Larry Wall wrote:
I would like to publicly apologize for my remarks, which were far too
harsh for the circumstances. I can only plead that I was trying to
be far too clever, and not thinking about how it would come across.
No, to be perfectly honest, it was more culpable
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 11:25:20AM -0600, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
: On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 09:02:57AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
: : There's also sp, unless someone redefines the sp subrule.
:
: But you can't use sp in a character class. Well, that is, unless
: you write it:
:
: +[
On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 07:52:24AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
I think we'll leave both _ and \_ meaning the same thing, just to avoid
that confusion path [...]
Yay!
: Whatever shortcuts we introduce, I'll be happy if we can just
: rule that backslash+space (i.e., \ ) is a literal space
:
On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 10:12:00AM +0100, Michele Dondi wrote:
: Oh, I'm not the person you were responding to, and probably the less
: entitled one to speak in the name of everyone else here, but I feel like
: doing so to say that in all earnestness I'm quite sure no one took any
: offense out
Patrick wrote:
Since we already have :perl5, I'd think that we'd want globbing
to be something like
rule jpeg :i :glob /*.jp{e,}g/
or, for something intra-rule-ish:
m :w / mv (:glob *.c)+ dir /
Here! Here!
And perhaps we'd want a general form for specifying other
pattern
On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 08:19:04PM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
: And perhaps we'd want a general form for specifying other
: pattern syntaxes; i.e., :perl5 and :glob are shortcuts for
: :syntax('perl5') and :syntax('glob') or something like that.
:
: Agreed.
But the language in the following
Larry Wall wrote:
And there aren't that many regexish languages anyway. So I think :syntax
is relatively useless except for documentation, and in practice people
will almost always omit it, which makes it even less useful, and pretty
nearly kicks it over into the category of multiplied
On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 09:46:59AM -0800, Dave Whipp wrote:
: Larry Wall wrote:
:
: And there aren't that many regexish languages anyway. So I think :syntax
: is relatively useless except for documentation, and in practice people
: will almost always omit it, which makes it even less useful, and
On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 10:30:20AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 09:46:59AM -0800, Dave Whipp wrote:
: Larry Wall wrote:
:
: And there aren't that many regexish languages anyway. So I think :syntax
: is relatively useless except for documentation, and in practice people
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 09:02:57AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 10:27:17AM -0600, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
: On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 06:32:17PM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
: We already have, from A5, \x[0a;0d], so you can supposedly say
: \x[123a;123b;123c]
:
:
On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 12:48:39PM -0600, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
: On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 09:02:57AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
: On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 10:27:17AM -0600, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
: : On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 06:32:17PM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
: : We already have, from A5,
On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 09:31:27AM +0200, Gaal Yahas wrote:
: In pugs, r7961:
:
: my @pats = /1/, /2/;
: say MATCH if 1 ~~ any @pats; # MATCH
: say MATCH if 0 ~~ any @pats; # no match
:
: So far so good. But:
:
: my $junc = any @pats;
: say MATCH if 1 ~~ $junc; # no
On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 07:38:19PM -0400, Stevan Little wrote:
I have been meaning to do some kind of p5 prototype of this, I can
push it up the TODO list if it would help you.
As you can probably infer from the amount of time that it has taken for me
to realise that I've failed to reply to
I'm changing my mind about type sigils. After playing around with ^
for a while, I find it's useful only in signatures and declarations,
and I'm generally forced to omit it when using it within inner
declarations, or it would redeclare the type. Taking that together
with the fact that it
On Nov 22, 2005, at 1:40, Matt Fowles wrote:
Call Frame Access
Chip began to pontificate about how one should access call frames.
Chip
suggested using a PMC, but Leo thought that would be too slow.
No, not really. It'll be slower, yes. But my argument was: whenever you
start
On 11/22/05, Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What tipped me over the edge, however, is that I want ^$x back for a
unary operator that is short for 0..^$x, that is, the range from 0
to $x - 1. I kept wanting such an operator in revising S09. It also
makes it easy to write
for ^5 {
On Wed, 2005-11-23 at 01:39 +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
But my argument was: whenever you
start introspecting a call frame, by almost whatever means, this will
keep the call frame alive[1] (see Continuation or Closure). That is:
timely destruction doesn't work for example...
Destruction
23 matches
Mail list logo
