At 04:08 PM 8/4/00 -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
>I've never used it, but PL/I' preprocessor and ASMG's preprocessor ,
>If I recall correctly, both worked this way. The text of the arguments
>and the actual input stream were available for manipulation. The
>return value (or emitted strings) were use
I've never used it, but PL/I' preprocessor and ASMG's preprocessor ,
If I recall correctly, both worked this way. The text of the arguments
and the actual input stream were available for manipulation. The
return value (or emitted strings) were used as input to the parser.
This would be quite clos
>>If it's a language thing (as your mailing list field in your RFC
>>indicates) then it should be on -subs.
>>
>>If it's a precompiler thing then, um, doesn't that fall under internals?
>
>Nope. Internals implements (and possibly says "You want us to do
>*what*!?!?"), language designs. Get us a d
At 02:42 AM 8/5/00 +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>[ Cc'd back to -language, hope you don't mind ]
>
>On Fri, Aug 04, 2000 at 09:08:18PM +0200, Jean-Louis Leroy wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >
> >> Please take discussion on this RFC to the forthcoming -subs sublist.
> >> Really. Just hol
At 09:38 PM 8/4/00 +0200, Jean-Louis Leroy wrote:
>Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > This does complicate the job of the parser/lexer rather
> > considerably.
>
>Why? Isn't it 'just' a matter or making the lexer read from a
>hot-redirectable input stream?
If it is, then it's not that
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This does complicate the job of the parser/lexer rather
> considerably.
Why? Isn't it 'just' a matter or making the lexer read from a
hot-redirectable input stream?
Hmm. Such a bold statement from someone who's never contributed a
patch (to Perl)
--
[ Cc'd back to -language, hope you don't mind ]
On Fri, Aug 04, 2000 at 09:08:18PM +0200, Jean-Louis Leroy wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>> Please take discussion on this RFC to the forthcoming -subs sublist.
>> Really. Just hold off for a little while until the list is up. Should
>> be r
"Michael Mathews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have updated the Multiline Comment RFC with responces and conclusions
> based on the feedback that has been submitted so far. If you are presenting
> this example as an alternative/addition to the suggestions made there (so
> far) I would strongly
At 02:45 PM 8/4/00 +, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
>=head1 TITLE
>
>Immediate subroutines
This does complicate the job of the parser/lexer rather considerably. While
not a reason to not do it, if we're going to do this we should do it with
significant force and flexibility that we don't need
> =head1 EXAMPLES
>
> # multiline comments
>
> sub comment
> {
> return '';
> }
>
> use immediate 'comment';
>
> sub foo
> {
> # ...
> comment {
> this is a multiline comment;
> the call to comment is executed at parse time
> and returns an empty string that replaces
> the whole call in the parse
Please take discussion on this RFC to the forthcoming -subs sublist.
Really. Just hold off for a little while until the list is up. Should
be really soon.
K.
(with cherries on top)
--
Kirrily Robert -- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- http://netizen.com.au/
Open Source development, consulting and solut
=head1 TITLE
Immediate subroutines
=head1 VERSION
Maintainer: Jean-Louis Leroy
Date: 04 Aug 2000
Version: 1
Mailing List: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Number: 18
=head1 ABSTRACT
This very simple construct, inspired by the Forth language, makes the
parser extensible by Perl code, providing pow
12 matches
Mail list logo
