Author: larry
Date: Sun Jan 7 19:13:17 2007
New Revision: 13518
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod
Log:
[particle]++ points out that an autocalled top method should be called TOP.
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod
On 1/7/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+Matching against a C object will call the C method
+defined in the grammar. The C method may either be a rule
+itself, or may call the actual top rule automatically. How the
+C determines the top rule is up to the grammar, but normal
+Per
On Sun, Jan 07, 2007 at 11:42:05AM +, Luke Palmer wrote:
: >+Any .foo method truth?any($_.foo)
:
: So... why the any() ? (0,"",undef,0) should be considered false?
Just trying to carry the "intersection" idea through to a method that
might return a list of things.
On 1/7/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
Author: larry
Date: Sun Jan 7 00:50:30 2007
New Revision: 13515
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod
+$_$xType of Match Implied Match if
+=== = =
+Any
On Sun, Jan 07, 2007 at 03:33:19AM -0800, Jonathan Lang wrote:
: IIRC, you don't even need .accepts for this. You could just say
:
: given $pattern {
:when $a ~~ $_ { ... }
:when $b ~~ $_ { ... }
:when $c ~~ $_ { ... }
: }
:
: ...since an explicit smart-match is a boolean expressio
Author: larry
Date: Sun Jan 7 08:16:06 2007
New Revision: 13517
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod
Log:
Typos from (Aaron and Nick)ยป++
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod
==
--- doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> +the top rule. This may be overridden in either the base grammar or a
> +derived grammer by explicitly naming a rule "top", or defining your
There's a typo there -- "grammer" for "grammar".
--
Aaron Crane
On Sun, Jan 07, 2007 at 12:50:32AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> +Num Num numeric equality+$_ == $x
I don't think that you need that plus sign ^
You don't write ~ for the analogous Str/Str case below:
> +Capture Num numeric equality+$_ == $
Larry Wall wrote:
Lots of interesting ideas. But I don't think the reverse-test
situation will arise all that frequently. How 'bout we let the user
just say:
my macro statement_control: { "when .accepts: " }
or some such...
IIRC, you don't even need .accepts for this. You could just sa
Author: larry
Date: Sun Jan 7 01:39:34 2007
New Revision: 13516
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod
Log:
Clarification on how a Grammar pattern finds its top rule.
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod
==
--- do
10 matches
Mail list logo
