Luke == Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Luke But you don't really need to parse to syntax highlight, either. You
Luke just need to tokenize.
Unfortunately, to tokenize, you also have to know the state of the parse.
As long as / is both divide and begin regex, you're toasted.
Please see
Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
Luke == Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Luke But you don't really need to parse to syntax highlight, either. You
Luke just need to tokenize.
Unfortunately, to tokenize, you also have to know the state of the parse.
As long as / is both divide and begin regex,
Matthew == Matthew Walton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Matthew So you're saying that in Perl 6 it will be entirely impossible to
Matthew determine if / appears as the division operator or as the beginning of
Matthew a regex from a purely syntactic examination of the source code?
Yes.
Matthew I'm
Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
Matthew == Matthew Walton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Matthew So you're saying that in Perl 6 it will be entirely impossible to
Matthew determine if / appears as the division operator or as the beginning of
Matthew a regex from a purely syntactic examination of the source
Matthew == Matthew Walton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Matthew Perl 6 has formal parameters for subs, methods etc. I don't see any
Matthew mention of Perl 5-style prototypes in S6, and I honestly can't see how
Matthew they could possibly fit with formal parameters. Hopefully Larry or
Matthew
Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
Matthew == Matthew Walton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Matthew Perl 6 has formal parameters for subs, methods etc. I don't see any
Matthew mention of Perl 5-style prototypes in S6, and I honestly can't see how
Matthew they could possibly fit with formal parameters.
On Fri, Nov 26, 2004 at 10:29:52AM +0300, Alexey Trofimenko wrote:
: I'm talking about unifying namespaces of arrays, hashes and scalars. I
: could swear i've seen some RFC about it..
Yes that's RFC 9, which was discussed and rejected long ago in A2.
I just find that I prefer to think of the
On Fri, Nov 26, 2004 at 07:32:58AM +0300, Alexey Trofimenko wrote:
: ah, I forget, how could I do qx'echo $VAR' in Perl6? something like
: qx:noparse 'echo $VAR' ?
Hmm, well, with the currently defined adverbs you'd have to say
qx:s(0)'echo $VAR'
but that doesn't give you protection from
Larry Wall skribis 2004-11-26 9:33 (-0800):
but that doesn't give you protection from other kinds of interpolation.
I think we need two more adverbs that add the special features of qx and qw,
so that you could write that: q:x/echo $VAR/ where ordinary qx/$cmd/
is short for qq:x/$cmd/
Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
All the handwaving in the world won't fix this. As long as we have
dual-natured characters like /, and user-defined prototypes, Perl
cannot be lexed without also parsing, and therefore without also
running BEGIN blocks.
And user-defined prototypes that change when the
James Mastros skribis 2004-11-26 14:36 (+0100):
And user-defined prototypes that change when the argument list of a
function ends, that is. If we forced the argument list for all
functions to have parens (including empty parens for argument less
functions), then we'd be OK, I'm fairly
On Fri, Nov 26, 2004 at 07:31:09PM +0100, Juerd wrote:
: Larry Wall skribis 2004-11-26 9:33 (-0800):
: but that doesn't give you protection from other kinds of interpolation.
: I think we need two more adverbs that add the special features of qx and qw,
: so that you could write that: q:x/echo
12 matches
Mail list logo
