> > The only extra piece of syntactic sugar that C<rx> is giving us over
> > C<rule>[*] is the ability to have arbitrary delimiters.
> Not quite arbitrary. Alphanumerics aren't allowed, nor are colon or
> parens.
Of course. I didn't want to poison my entire sentence with footnotes
for the obvious exceptions.
> > If I were satisfied with always using C<{}> as delimiters for C<rx> then a
> > program would run the same if I did a C<s:each/rx/rule/> on it.
> Yes. Although, of course, you'd have to do a C<s:each{rx}{rule}> if you wanted
> to be consistent ;-)
Ha ha, yes.
> > Or, to put it more succinctly: do there exist two pieces of
> > *syntactically correct* code like
> > ... rule ...
> > and
> > ... rx ...
> > (where the ... are identical in both) which each produce *valid* and
> > *different* semantics?
> Yes. For example:
> sub foo;
> foo rule ($arg) { $var := <$arg> };
> foo rx ($arg) { $var := <$arg> };
[munch]
Ouch. [Looks to others on list] Hands up those of you who were just
about to suggest that example, but wanted Damian to move first? :)
Well, there goes my beautiful table from another post. Darn. :/
(And just as I was beginning to try to draw parallels between
sub foo is xyz { ... }
and
rule foo :xyz { ... }
but that's just getting plain strange.)
> > Notwithstanding C<< -> >>, which I now understand to be nothing
> > more than a different spelling of C<sub>.
> It's a little more than that. A C<< -> >> uses different delimiters
> (now *there's* a parallel!) for its parameter list. Whereas C<sub>
> requires {...}, C<< -> >> allows either (...) or <ws>...<ws>.
^ ^
Hang on, are we still talking parameter lists, or the closure itself?
(Or was that just a typo, instead supposed to be parentheses?)
--
Debbie Pickett http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~debbiep [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"On the docks her soul is sinking, but her spirit longs to soar. Oh life, she
cries, there must be more." - _Oh Life (There Must be More)_, Alan Parsons
