Larry wrote:
sub while (test is rx/expr/, body);
or some such. That probably isn't sufficient to pick expr out of Perl's
grammar rather than the current lexical scope.
I love the idea, but the property name needs to be more expressive
(and Huffmanly longer). Maybe:
sub
Ken Fox wrote:
A question: Do rules matched in a { code } block set backtrack points for
the outer rule?
I don't believe so. From A5:
A pattern nested within a closure is classified as its own rule,
however, so it never gets the chance to pass out of a {...} closure.
Larry Wall wrote:
: In summary: assuming Perl 6 allows user-defined while-ish structures, how
: would it be done?
I think the secret is to allow easy attachment of regex rules to sub
and parameter declarations. There's little point in re-inventing
regex syntax using declarations. The
In a message dated Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Damian Conway writes:
And, of course, the Cis valued property would smart-match its value
against the corrresponding argument, so one could also code optimized
variants like:
sub repeat is multi ($desc is valued(1), body) {
body(1);
[apologies to anyone who received this twice... the bonehead at the keyboard
left the subject blank. grin]
This week I was fortunate enough to hear Damian speak twice, once on
everything and once on Perl6. Damian, it was tremendous of you to come
and speak to us in London - thank-you very
Damian Conway wrote:
rule expr1 {
term { m:cont/operators/ or fail } term
}
Backtracking would just step back over the rule as if it were atomic
(or followed by a colon).
Ok, thanks. (The followed by a colon is just to explain the behavior,
right? It's illegal to follow a
[NOTE: BCCing off-list to protect private email addresses]
On Fri, 2002-08-30 at 09:07, Ken Fox wrote:
Does the following example backtrack into foo?
rule foo { b+ }
rule bar { a foo b }
This was the bit that got me on-board. I did not see the need for
backtracking into rules until
On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Ken Fox wrote:
: Ok, thanks. (The followed by a colon is just to explain the behavior,
: right? It's illegal to follow a code block with a colon, isn't it?)
I don't see why it should be illegal--it could be useful if the closure
has played continuation games of some sort to
Larry Wall wrote:
On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Ken Fox wrote:
: Ok, thanks. (The followed by a colon is just to explain the behavior,
: right? It's illegal to follow a code block with a colon, isn't it?)
I don't see why it should be illegal--it could be useful if the closure
has played
On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Ken Fox wrote:
: Apoc 5 has It is an error to use : on any atom that does no
: backtracking. Code blocks don't backtrack (at least that's what
: I understood Damian to say).
Code blocks don't backtrack *by default*. But you can do anything
in a closure.
: Are zero width
Larry Wall wrote:
There's a famous book called Golf is Not a Game of Perfect.
Well now I'm *totally* confused. I looked that up on Amazon
and it has something to do with clubs and grass and stuff. That's
completely different than what I thought golfing was. ;)
Seriously, though. I have a
Exegesis 4 says
When the subroutine dispatch mechanism detects one or more pairs as
arguments to a subroutine with named parameters, it examines the keys of
the pairs and binds their values to the correspondingly named parameters
-- no matter what order the paired arguments originally
In Damian's excellent perl6 talk, I think he said that by default a hash
in list context will return a list of pairs. Hence this
array = %hash
for %hash with n keys would give an array of n elements, all pairs.
If you want the perl5 tradition of a list alternating key,value,key,value...
Nicholas Clark wrote:
[...]
And what happens if I write
%hash4 = (Something, mixing, pairs = and, scalars);
1 23 4 5
Perl5 says Odd number of elements in hash assignment at -e line 1.
And Perl6 should, too.
IMHO, your example isn't too good
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steffen Mueller) writes:
%hash4 = (Something, mixing, pairs = and, scalars);
1 23 4 5
Perl5 says Odd number of elements in hash assignment at -e line 1.
And Perl6 should, too.
Except that a pair is a single thing.
%hash4
Steffen Mueller
%hash4 = (Something, mixing, pairs = and, scalars);
1 23 4 5
Perl5 says Odd number of elements in hash assignment at -e line 1.
And Perl6 should, too.
Hmm, I rather like the idea of thinking of a %foo variable as a set, not a
Piers Cawley wrote:
Maybe we should just say 'sod it' and implement the entire Smalltalk
Collection hierarchy and have done with it? Sets, bags, hashes
(dictionaries for the Smalltalker), whatever, all have their uses...
I'm not sure if you were being facetious, but I do think all the
Is C\n going to be a rule (e.g. C eol ) or is it implicitly
translated to:
[\x0a\x0d...]+
If it's the latter, then what does this do?
\n?
Do I get
[[\x0a\x0d...]+]?
Or do I get
[\x0a\x0d...]+?
If the former (which I assume is the case), how do I get the
18 matches
Mail list logo
