On Sun, Dec 08, 2002 at 03:41:22PM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
Nicholas Clark wrote:
Well, I was wondering if my function returned CR, then
\c[$(call_a_func())] would mean that the CR gets run thought the
\c[...] conversion and a single byte (\r) is what ends up in the string.
I seriously
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 23:43:44 +
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Content-Disposition: inline
From: Nicholas Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.20, http://develooper.com/code/qpsmtpd/
On Sun, Dec 08, 2002 at
At 5:11 PM -0700 12/9/02, Luke Palmer wrote:
You must remember that the Perl 6 parser is one-pass now.
It is? Are you sure?
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
Luke Palmer wrote:
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 23:43:44 +
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Content-Disposition: inline
From: Nicholas Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.20, http://develooper.com/code/qpsmtpd/
On Sun, Dec 08,
Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 5:11 PM -0700 12/9/02, Luke Palmer wrote:
You must remember that the Perl 6 parser is one-pass now.
It is? Are you sure?
It should be; the raw parsed data might be treated with regular
expressions in the parse-tree processing stage, but that shouldn't
count as a
At 10:16 PM -0500 12/9/02, Joseph F. Ryan wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 5:11 PM -0700 12/9/02, Luke Palmer wrote:
You must remember that the Perl 6 parser is one-pass now.
It is? Are you sure?
It should be;
Doesn't mean it will be. And should is an awfully strong word...
--
Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 10:16 PM -0500 12/9/02, Joseph F. Ryan wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 5:11 PM -0700 12/9/02, Luke Palmer wrote:
You must remember that the Perl 6 parser is one-pass now.
It is? Are you sure?
It should be;
Doesn't mean it will be. And should is an awfully
On Sat, Dec 07, 2002 at 01:20:26PM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
Nicholas Clark mused:
I just had this thought - can I interpolate in there?
Something like
\c[$(call_a_func())]
Why not just:
$(chr call_a_func()]
???
Well, I was wondering if my function returned CR, then
Nicholas Clark wrote:
Why not just:
$(chr call_a_func()]
???
Well, I was wondering if my function returned CR, then
\c[$(call_a_func())] would mean that the CR gets run thought the
\c[...] conversion and a single byte (\r) is what ends up in the string.
I seriously doubt it. %-)
Damian
On 12/05/2002 12:18 PM, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
On Thursday, December 5, 2002, at 02:11 AM, James Mastros wrote:
On 12/04/2002 3:21 PM, Larry Wall wrote:
\x and \o are then just shortcuts.
Can we please also have \0 as a shortcut for \0x0?
\0 in addition to \x, meaning the same thing? I
On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 03:24:44PM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
Larry was certainly in favour of it when he wrote A5
(see under http://search.cpan.org/perl6/apo/A05.pod#Backslash_Reform).
Except the separators he suggests are semicolons:
Perl 5 Perl 6
\x0a\x0d
Nicholas Clark mused:
I just had this thought - can I interpolate in there?
Something like
\c[$(call_a_func())]
Why not just:
$(chr call_a_func()]
???
Damian
On 12/04/2002 3:21 PM, Larry Wall wrote:
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 11:38:35AM -0800, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
: We still need to verify whether we can have, in qq strings:
:
:\033 - octal (p5; deprecated but allowed in p6?)
I think it's disallowed.
Thank the many gods ... or One True
On Thursday, December 5, 2002, at 02:11 AM, James Mastros wrote:
On 12/04/2002 3:21 PM, Larry Wall wrote:
\x and \o are then just shortcuts.
Can we please also have \0 as a shortcut for \0x0?
\0 in addition to \x, meaning the same thing? I think that would get
us back to where we were
On Wednesday, December 4, 2002, at 12:55 PM, David Whipp wrote:
How far can we go with this \c thing? How about:
print \c[72, 101, 108, 108, 111];
will that print Hello?
Huh... having a comma-separated list to represent multiple characters.
I can't think of any problems with that, and it
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 09:18:21AM -0800, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
:
: On Thursday, December 5, 2002, at 02:11 AM, James Mastros wrote:
:
: On 12/04/2002 3:21 PM, Larry Wall wrote:
: \x and \o are then just shortcuts.
: Can we please also have \0 as a shortcut for \0x0?
:
: \0 in addition to \x,
We still need to verify whether we can have, in qq strings:
\033 - octal (p5; deprecated but allowed in p6?)
\o33 - octal (p5)
\x1b - hex (p5)
\d123 - decimal (?)
\b1001- binary (?)
and if so, if these are allowed too:
Michael Lazzaro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
Note that \b conflicts with backspace. I'd rather keep backspace than
binary, personally; I have yet to feel the need to call out a char in
binary. :-) Or we can make it dependent on the trailing digits, or
require the brackets, or require backspace
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 11:38:35AM -0800, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
: We still need to verify whether we can have, in qq strings:
:
:\033 - octal (p5; deprecated but allowed in p6?)
I think it's disallowed.
:\o33 - octal (p5)
:\x1b - hex (p5)
:
Larry wrote:
: But I think we'd definitely like to introduce \d.
Can't, unless we change \d to digit in regexen.
Which we ought to be very wary of, given how very frequently it's
used in regexes.
Damian
On Wednesday, December 4, 2002, at 12:21 PM, Larry Wall wrote:
I think the general form is:
\0o33 - octal
\0x1b - hex
\0d123 - decimal
\0b1001- binary
\x and \o are then just shortcuts.
snip
The general form could be
\0o[33] - octal
\0x[1b] -
I think that solves all the problems we're having. We change \c to
have more flexible meanings, with \0o, \0x, \0d, \0b, \o, \x as
shortcuts. Boom, we're done. Thanks!
How far can we go with this \c thing? How about:
print \c[72, 101, 108, 108, 111];
will that print Hello?
Dave.
On Wednesday, December 4, 2002, at 11:50 AM, Dave Whipp wrote:
ps. how did this thread migrate from p6d to p6l?
By popular request. If we have something we think will be even
remotely controversial, we'll move it to p6l for debate, then use p6d
to summarize the outcome. That will
23 matches
Mail list logo
