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
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.
> Is Perl going to provide API to access pointers through so
On Sun, 17 Dec 2000, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> For my part, at least, I've been thinking of something either LISP-ish
> or very simple parameter setting/checking (like stuff in, say, your
> average .rc file with a little control flow thrown in) when it's
> brought up. Occasionally things FORTHish, b
On Sun, 17 Dec 2000, David Grove 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. Actually, it's a bit more than a source filter. The goal
> would be to turn the creole
On Sun, 17 Dec 2000, Andy Dougherty wrote:
> Now matter how we slice it, it's going to be very hard for the first
> person to twist perl6 to parse something that is both complex and very
> different from Perl6. And I'm unconvinced that this difficulty ought to
> hold up the entire process. It w
On Fri, 24 Nov 2000, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> I think Dan was suggesting that the (user side) regex doesn't change at all
> (so that's no new syntax there)
> It's just that the innards of perl gains a tied scalar that doesn't actually
> read in and buffer the file immediately, but defers it as lon
On Wed, 22 Nov 2000, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> Probably the easiest thing is to implement some sort of file-tied scalar or
> something that can provide bytes to the regex engine until it stops asking
> for them. Some magic or other, though, will get us what we need.
That might be the easiest thing f
On Wed, 22 Nov 2000, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> Are we hoping that we can mmap() most scripts, so read isn't hugely a
> problem? And slrp the rest in one? [doesn't feel good]
> Are we going to have "lazy scalars" which collude with the regexp engine
> so that if the regexp engine hits the cu
On Tue, 21 Nov 2000, David Grove wrote:
> If we were simply feeding it perl with a single syntax, we could get away
> with a "one call" scheme. But since we're dealing with almost certainly
> mutually exclusive syntax and semantics, it probably needs more
> information.
Perhaps the "one call" ca
