On 4/27/07, Brad Bowman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I would expect a different ordering. Perhaps the ".*" should be ".*?"
or the output "bracadabr bracad brac br cadabr cad c dabr d br" ?
The :overlap example follows this order.
You're probably right about that:
$ perl5.9.5 -E 'my @m; "abracad
On 4/12/07, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
With that fix a lot of tests still fail, here's a full report:
http://sial.org/pbot/24167
I updated to YAML::Syck 0.84 which made different parts of the test
suite fail, see http://sial.org/pbot/24168
On 4/12/07, Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
C<< our $BALANCED_BRACKETS = .. >> on line 22 in Parser.pm needs to be
C<< our $BALANCED_BRACKETS; $BALANCED_BRACKETS = ... >> or almost all
the tests have compile errors on my 5.8.8.
With that fix a lot of tests still fail, here's a full repo
On 3/19/07, Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm hoping to get a run at finishing the Pod6 parser (in between crises),
but
don't hold your breath. :-(
Since you seem to have something already and it's been on hiatus for
quite some time could you possibly post what you have already
somew
> (my $x, undef, my $y) = 1 .. 3; parses to my ($x, undef, $y) = 1 .. 3
> and always has as far as I know, so please share your hallucinogens
> with the list:)
>
Sadly, the hallucinogens are essential, not external. But I'm pretty
sure those are two different parse trees.
They have the same B:
On 11/15/06, Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 11/14/06, Vincent Foley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was toying around with Pugs and I tried the following Perl 5 list assignment
>
> my ($a, undef, $b) = 1..3;
Huh. I didn't think that worked in Perl 5, either. What am I misrememberi
On 2/18/06, The Perl 6 Summarizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Smart match table
> Robin Houston had some questions/observations about the smart match
> table in synopsis 4. This is the table that describes how the smart
> match ("~~") operator does its comparisons. It turns out that
On 1/12/06, Dave Whipp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>(perhaps this discussion belongs on p6l)
> > It sure does;)
>
> (this reply moved to p6l)
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Dave Whipp wrote:
> >
> >>An Int is Enumerable: each value that is an Int has well defined succ
> >>and pred values. Con
On 12/24/05, Andrew Savige <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm curious to know if the Perl 6 design team fully endorse a change from the
> Perl 5 "the (single) implementation *is* the specification" model to a
> "multiple implementations are good, m'kay, but from a single (detailed and
> precise) spec