On 2005-12-10, Michael Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> That's crazy talk! But seriously, I think we need to keep it as simple as
> possible (I want to avoid having a dispatch parser that implements anything
> close to a full grammar). All it needs to do is cover the majority of the
> cases
> at first. As more and more users try it out and discover real-world use-cases
> where it's not sufficient and then we can look at doing more.
My philosophy exactly. So let's take out all forms of pattern matching
out of the v1.0 design spec. We'll have several ideas to start from if
we want to extend it later.
I've updated the spec on the wiki with the following refinements:
- "requirements" is gone altogether.
- the "field => undef" syntax which as confusing is gone, replaced with
the ":field?/" syntax which was suggested.
- I removed Shawn's comments, since I felt they had been addressed.
I happy with the outcome and have the some sense we are ready to move
from design and implementation.
Final feedback?
Mark
--
http://mark.stosberg.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Web Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=cgiapp&r=1&w=2
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
