Perl6 will have macros. Good. Cool. But, sadly, that seems to be close
to the most specific thing anyone says about the subject. There is
some further discussion in Apocalypse Exegesis 6, but nothing in the
Synopsis.
Now, considering that macros are a language feature and that the
Synopses are
On 29/01/06, Yuval Kogman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Basically the plan is that when an internal AST language is decided
upon, the macros will be able to get either the source code text, or
an AST.
Two things. First, if the AST path is taken, doesn't that mean that
the AST representation has to
Icelandic: laukur (Incidentally, none of you will ever guess how to
correctly pronounce that.)
--
Schwäche zeigen heißt verlieren;
härte heißt regieren.
- Glas und Tränen, Megaherz
On 24/05/05, Michele Dondi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Incidentally, would 'laukurdottir' be a proper Icelandic offence? :-)
It'd be 'lauksdóttir' (due to declension) and mean 'daughter of an
onion'. If nothing else, it would make people look at you in a funny
way... ;)
--
Schwäche zeigen heißt
On 14/05/05, Damian Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here are a few of the things I'll be using reductions for in Perl 6...
1. To add things up:
$sum = [+] @amounts;
2. To calculate the probability that I'll need to use a reduction today:
$final_prob =
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 08:56:58 -0500, Matt Fowles [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 08:48:55 -0500, Aaron Sherman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
use less syntax;
Back out the entire p6 grammar and put in lisp's instead...
Huh. I suppose that's the only difference these days... ;)
On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 01:37:00 -0800, Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
for =$*IN {...}
for =$*ARGS {...}
Yay. A generalised form of the input operator, which can create even
handier idioms for simple file processing. Maybe I wasn't clear
enough. My issue wasn't specifically with '.lines'
This whole issue kind of makes me go 'ugh'. One of the things I like
best about Perl is the amazing simplicity of the input construct.
Replacing that with something that not only is object oriented, but on
top of that also LOOKS object oriented is bound to be a loss. It's
going to be that bit
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 22:00:03 +1100, Adam Kennedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And just after the snip you will see I qualify parse in this context
as loading the perl in some form of DOM-type tree.
And yet you disqualify the Perl6 rule system, with its tree of match
objects? What, exactly, is it
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 19:46:37 -0700, Edward Peschko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You could even say that in the chinese case that if you have
?$B#3 -- 3 -- 3
that's a bug. It had *better* turn back into ?$B#3 when you do
the int to string conversion. That's a internationalization snafu
if you
Now you're underusing smileys. I hope.
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 12:04:01 -0700, Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 01:49:07PM +0200, Michele Dondi wrote:
: I fear, and with good reasons, that this may be too wild a case of an
: extremization, but I wonder wether, just like
Okay, it ought to be there soon. I added it in the New operators
section, since it's pretty different from =~.
That'd also be appropriate, but I didn't see an explicit mention anywhere...
Arguably the ~~ table should go in S3 instead of S4.
It most likely should, since ~~ is an operator,
I know that, you know that ... but the synopses never actually say it.
It's evident from context, but it's never said explicitly. I would
*think* that should be in the Operator renaming section of S3, and
presume this is an oversight?
--
Schwäche zeigen heißt verlieren;
härte heißt regieren.
-
As it stands, though, perl6-internals isn't about perl, but Parrot ...
so of the two lists, language is arguably more appropriate...
On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 22:37:04 -0400, Matt Diephouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I may be completely off base here, but I think this whole discussion
would be better
14 matches
Mail list logo
