Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
- for minimal matching the ? is too far away from the operator that it
applies to. It looks like it's doing something to the closure (and
maybe it is) Should that be [foo]**?{$m..$n} instead?
- Bringing a closure into the picture seems to put too much power in
Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
I think you meant something akin to C /(.) { use PIR; print P0;}/ and
C /(.) { use Forth; P0 print}/ :-) As long as we're special-casing
things and hand parsing we might as well use a small subset of Perl)
Is perl actually going to allow arbitrary languages in the
* Nicholas Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-09-08 17:37:52 +0100]:
The probing is going to *have* to get written in something that compiles
down to parrot bytecode to work on the autoconf-deprived systems, so with
that as a given there's no need for autoconf ahead of that.
How feasable would it
On Fri, Sep 17, 2004 at 08:19:37AM -0600, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
: I'm going to go with a syntactic shortcut for the time being, albeit
: something more complex than the suggestion above. I don't want to force
: people to make multi-line closures. It will probably look for matching
: braces,
On Sat, Sep 18, 2004 at 08:36:06AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: I think in the long run we'll have those inner compilers that know how to
: stop themselves and can be handed a closure, and those that don't know how
: to stop, and must be spoonfed the right amount, which is almost always
: an even
On Sat, Sep 18, 2004 at 12:29:52AM -0500, Dan Hursh wrote:
Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
I think you meant something akin to C /(.) { use PIR; print P0;}/ and
C /(.) { use Forth; P0 print}/ :-) As long as we're special-casing
things and hand parsing we might as well use a small subset of
Please forgive me if these ideas have been discussed before. I don't
remember having read them elsewhere.
For specifying in-rule repetitions, why not use the rule modifer we
already have for specifying whole-rule repetitions; namely, C:x. Allow
:x inside rules like :i and :w, and we get something
Dan Hursh writes:
Second, if it is a problem that '?' is too far away, how about this?
[foo]**{5..3} # greedy
[foo]**{3..5} # lazy
Because 5..3 is the empty list. This wasn't a mistake in Perl 5, so
it's staying in Perl 6.
Oh, is there a way to trick this closure syntax into being the
Kurt Hutchinson writes:
For specifying in-rule repetitions, why not use the rule modifer we
already have for specifying whole-rule repetitions; namely, C:x. Allow
:x inside rules like :i and :w, and we get something like this:
rx :w/ three m's\: [:3xm] /
rx :w/ three
On Sep 18, 2004, at 2:09 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Nicholas Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-09-08 17:37:52 +0100]:
The probing is going to *have* to get written in something that
compiles
down to parrot bytecode to work on the autoconf-deprived systems, so
with
that as a given there's no need
On Sat, Sep 18, 2004 at 12:27:36PM -0700, Jeff Clites wrote:
: Ha, I'm sure it could probably be done, but of course most of what
: the shell does it invoke other programs, so in the common case it still
: wouldn't give you portability to non-Unix-like platforms.
Just translate it to a language
At 11:36 AM -0500 9/18/04, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
I'm by no means an expert, but I'd say that the inner languages don't
need to have any idea of closure or of curly braces; those are Perl's
responsibility.
Rather it's the rules parser's responsibility. Don't forget, more
languages than just
On Sat, Sep 18, 2004 at 03:00:09PM -0400, Kurt Hutchinson wrote:
Repitition is a kind of assertion, after all, and it seems like it
should get to play in the same angle-bracket sandbox as the other
assertions.
Once I got to thinking about **{}, the less and less it looked like an
assertion to
On Sat, Sep 18, 2004 at 03:41:37PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 11:36 AM -0500 9/18/04, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
I'm by no means an expert, but I'd say that the inner languages don't
need to have any idea of closure or of curly braces; those are Perl's
responsibility.
Rather it's the
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 21:24:35 -0700, Steve Fink [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sep-17, Matt Diephouse wrote:
o Calling subroutines from an eval creates a copy of the user stack,
so all changes are lost (rendering my Forth code unusable). Is this
behavior correct? If so, how should I go about
At 3:32 PM -0500 9/18/04, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
On Sat, Sep 18, 2004 at 03:41:37PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 11:36 AM -0500 9/18/04, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
I'm by no means an expert, but I'd say that the inner languages don't
need to have any idea of closure or of curly braces;
At 4:57 PM -0400 9/18/04, Matt Diephouse wrote:
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 21:24:35 -0700, Steve Fink [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sep-17, Matt Diephouse wrote:
o Calling subroutines from an eval creates a copy of the user stack,
so all changes are lost (rendering my Forth code unusable). Is this
Rod Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
One solution I see to this would be to have a lazy return of some
kind, where you can send out what results you have so far, but not
commit that your execution is over and still allow further results to
be posted. For lack of better word coming to mind,
Jonadab the Unsightly One writes:
Rod Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
One solution I see to this would be to have a lazy return of some
kind, where you can send out what results you have so far, but not
commit that your execution is over and still allow further results to
be posted. For
Luke Palmer wrote:
Jonadab the Unsightly One writes:
Rod Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
One solution I see to this would be to have a lazy return of some
kind, where you can send out what results you have so far, but not
commit that your execution is over and still allow further results
Juerd [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jonadab the Unsightly One skribis 2004-09-17 10:46 (-0400):
* They are of critical importance on Apache-based webservers.
They are not. See mod_mime_magic.
Magic, as far as I know, only works for filetypes that have known byte
sequences.
* They instruct
James Mastros [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As a special case, if the filename argument to perl is a
directory, and the directory contains a file named main.pl,
then the directory is prepended to @*INC, and main.pl is run.
I think it would be useful if the directory could also be an
Rod Adams writes:
Better documentation on gather/take is merited.
Without a doubt.
I would question the need for Cgather, however. Could not a lone
Ctake/Cemit force the return value of the enclosing routine/closure
to be a lazy list, and here's a few values to get things started?
Cgather
23 matches
Mail list logo
