David Whipp wrote:
>
> First, a slight clarification: if I say:
>
> m:w/ %foo := [ (\w+) = (\w+) [ , (\w+) ]* ] /
>
> does this give me a hash of arrays? (i.e. is the rhs of a hash processed as
> a scalar context)
That's an error. The grouping bound to a hypothetical hash has to have
either exactly one or exactly two captures in it. To get what you want
you'd need something like:
rule wordlist { (\w+) [ , (\w+) ]* }
m:w/ %foo := [ (\w+) = (<wordlist>) ] /
or just:
m:w/ %foo := [ (\w+) = ({ /(\w+) [ , (\w+) ]*/ }) ] /
> When I look at this, I see a common pattern: the join/split concept. It
> feels like there should be a standard assertion:
These are good ideas for assertions. If they don't become standard, it will
certainly be possible to write a module that makes them available.
> And a question about <m,n> (I think something similar came up a few weeks
> ago): why isn't it <m..n>, i.e. a list of the numbers of matches allowed.
> This seems to be the only place in perl6 where a list of numbers, as a
> range, isn't constructed using the .. operator.
Because a <m,n> isn't a list of numbers. It's the lower and upper bounds on a
repetition count.
Damian
