Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 12:29 PM 12/18/00 +, David Grove wrote:
>
> >Sam Tregar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 18 Dec 2000, David Grove wrote:
> > >
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> > > > _Perl_ _within_ _a_ _Perl_ _context_ _and_ _for_ _Perl_
_purposes_,
At 06:05 PM 12/18/00 +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
>On Mon, Dec 18, 2000 at 11:30:09AM +, David Grove wrote:
> >
> > Bart Lateur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > But, the gist of this post is: we don't want to loose the usefulness of
> > > the syntax highlighter, as soon as there is one syn
At 12:29 PM 12/18/00 +, David Grove wrote:
>Sam Tregar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 18 Dec 2000, David Grove wrote:
> >
>
>[snip]
>
> > > _Perl_ _within_ _a_ _Perl_ _context_ _and_ _for_ _Perl_ _purposes_,
> >
> > Feeling a little hostile to the rest of the programming world?
Sam Tregar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Dec 2000, David Grove wrote:
>
[snip]
> > _Perl_ _within_ _a_ _Perl_ _context_ _and_ _for_ _Perl_ _purposes_,
>
> Feeling a little hostile to the rest of the programming world? You're
> sounding almost nationalistic! We're not at war.
Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2000 at 11:30:09AM +, David Grove wrote:
> >
> > Bart Lateur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > But, the gist of this post is: we don't want to loose the
usefulness
> of
> > > the syntax highlighter, as soon as there is one
On Mon, Dec 18, 2000 at 11:30:09AM +, David Grove wrote:
>
> Bart Lateur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > But, the gist of this post is: we don't want to loose the usefulness of
> > the syntax highlighter, as soon as there is one syntax error in the
> > script, because this will be the norm
On Mon, 18 Dec 2000, David Grove wrote:
> For the full language spec, I don't think it's attainable, and honestly
> don't see the reason for it within the context of Perl.
I've got a simple reason for it - I think it's going to be part of the
Perl6 spec. Do I have any proof? Nope. We'll know
Bart Lateur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Dec 2000 14:11:50 -0700 (MST), Nathan Torkington wrote:
>
> >I think the problems with this that were raised in the past are:
> > * parsing partial source
> > * does this mean that the parser has to reparse the whole sourcefile
> > ever
Andy Dougherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The issues of 'use Python' or 'use Pythonish' are a quite different
issue.
> I don't think anyone believes it ought to be easy to *write* the
Pythonish
> module.
I do.
That's the problem. This is a nearly ubiquitously desired objective
(writing th
Andy Dougherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > That sounds too complex for what seems like a more simple solution.
When
> > you say "turn simple 'languages' into perl", that's what Dan's told
me is
> > my source filter.
>
> Correct. perl-byacc is a source filter. It takes in yacc source an
Another point re: the parsing process. I think it should be possible
for any of the steps or extensions to be defined as C code or as Perl
code. We're already shooting to have C subs isomorphic with Perl subs
so this shouldn't be a problem, just something to keep in mind.
Nat
> "NC" == Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
NC> I'm assuming that for performance reasons a parser-beast written in C would
NC> have code to do this conditionally compiled (like the -DDEBUGGING stuff)
NC> so that serious production perl wouldn't have the slowdown, but the perl
NC> yo
Sam Tregar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Dec 2000, David Grove wrote:
>
> > Ok, my C's rather rusty, but are we interested in parsing that?
>
> Yes. I've heard people talk about a C frontend. Will it ever see the
> light? I don't know. Does it matter? I don't think so.
Sorr
On Sun, 17 Dec 2000, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 02:24 PM 12/17/00 -0500, Sam Tregar wrote:
> >It comes down to what is meant by "little language". When I hear that
> >term I immediately think Scheme and TCL.
> For my part, at least, I've been thinking of something either LISP-ish or
> very si
On Sun, 17 Dec 2000 14:11:50 -0700 (MST), Nathan Torkington wrote:
>I think the problems with this that were raised in the past are:
> * parsing partial source
> * does this mean that the parser has to reparse the whole sourcefile
> every time you type a character?
Hold it. I don't think that
On Sun, 17 Dec 2000, David Grove wrote:
> > "Little languages", on the other hand, are a somewhat different matter.
> > They will presumably be not-so-complex and hence won't require such
> deep
> > hooks, and some redundancy there won't be such a big problem.
>
> I'm not sure how this is inc
Sam Tregar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> possible, right? Are you saying you don't think we should make it
> possible for someone to write a C parser for Perl?
For the full language spec, I don't think it's attainable, and honestly
don't see the reason for it within the context of Perl. It do
On Sun, Dec 17, 2000 at 02:11:50PM -0700, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> Nicholas Clark writes:
> > Would it be sane to get the parser to return suitable information on the
> > source to let a syntax analyser (such as a highlighting editor) know that
> > character positions 5123 to 5146 are a qq() str
This is the fourth time I've sent this mail to perl6-internals-api-parser,
but it doesn't seem to be arriving. None of my other mail is affected, and
perl5-porters is, for once, behaving itself; why this list in particular?
- Forwarded message from Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
Dam
Damn this is annoying. Is it perl.org that's dropping mail or me?
- Forwarded message from Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
On Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 08:09:23PM +, David Grove wrote:
> Thinking of just the parser as a single entity seems to me to be headed into
> trouble unless we can
20 matches
Mail list logo
