On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 10:33:00AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote: > : Aye. Is there an idea on how the two forms of `if` would be defined > : using plain Perl 6? > > That's exactly what the syntactic category syntax is for, and why > parsing has to be done indirectly in terms of syntactic categories, > if you'll recall my message of some weeks ago on parser states.
Hrm, sorry if it has been covered before, but I was asking for
the code that defines statement_modifier:<if> itself, something like
this:.
sub statement_modifier:<> ($x) is parsed(rx:p/[if|unless]/) {...}
sub statement_modifier:<if> (Expression $body, Expression $cond) {
...
}
except I'm not quite sure of the syntax above, and what to fill in the
"..." part.
> declaration. On the other hand, maybe we could allow the split
> interpration if "if" is defined as a macro, which is less likely to
> happen accidentally than "sub if". But that seems a bit hacky. I
> think if people really want to override statement modifiers, they
> should do it with an explicit grammar munge that elevates prefix:<foo>
> to hide statement_modifier:<foo>. By default statement modifiers
> are true reserved words, I think.
Okay, then I'll make prefix:<if> invisible. :)
Thanks,
/Autrijus/
pgpEkJmgJBSRs.pgp
Description: PGP signature
