Aaron Crane wrote:
Mmm, yummy. I do have a question though (and apologies if I've merely
missed the answer). We've got two productive operation-formation rules: one
saying add a final = to operate-and-assign, and the other saying wrap in
[] to vectorise. But no-one's said which order they
Scott Duff asked:
How do we get at the eigenstates of a superposition?
We obviously need another operator! ducks
Actually, I think we need a universal method on scalars that
gives the eigenstates of that value. It might be C$val.eigenstates
or maybe just C$val.states. The method would work
Deborah Pickett wrote:
Which looks better?
if ($a == 1|2|3 || $b eq x|y|z)
or
if ($a == 1||2||3 | $b eq x||y||z
?
No question thatthe former works better. Lower precedence operators govern
larger chunks, and so should themselves be larger (i.e. more easily detected).
I just need some
Simon Cozens wrote:
I don't understand this, on several levels. The lowest level on which
I don't understand it is that testing whether an array is full of threes:
array 3
Err...that's not what that does. What you wrote creates a scalar value that
superimposes the scalar values C
Larry mused:
Now I'm wondering whether these should be split into:
++|+! - bitwise operations on int
+= +|= +!=
~~|~! - bitwise operations on str
~= ~|= ~!=
I think this is UME (Unnecessary Multiplication of Entities),
Simon Cozens wrote:
Ah, I see. So (x y) is equivalent to all(x,y) ?
Yes. Cany, Call, and Cone are the n-ary prefix versions
of binary infix C|, C, C! respectively.
One might imagine others of this ilk too, perhaps:
BinaryN-ary
+sum
*prod
Luke Palmer wrote:
You know, \ and friends as xor is appealing to me.
H. I quite like that too. :-)
Also, a question about superpositions: Is
$x = 1 | 2 | 3
equivalent to
$x = 1 | 2
$x |= 3
No. The precedence is wrong.
or
$x = (1 | 2) | 3
Yes.
or is there a
fearcadi wrote:
* do we have have an axcess to the signature of the
subroutine if we have been passed only its reference .
that is , for exemple , can
process( x , step )
guess how many arguments step expects ?
I'd expect that Code objects would have a Csignature or Csig method:
Larry wrote:
And you get the C || and for free
Yeah, but it's the same sense of free in which spam is free.
You pay for it in other ways.
But distinguishing int ops from str ops fixes the really nasty rule
in Perl 5 that says If this value (these values) has (have) ever
been used in a
Larry wrote:
: H. I quite like that too. :-)
Except what about unary xor, i.e. 1's complement?
I was carefully ignoring that. ;-)
Besides, Windows programmers would continually be writing
$a / $b
and wonder why they don't get one($a,$b);
grin
: Also, a question about
Excellent (and valuble) work Michael. Thank-you.
My turn for a few comments:
| ! - superpositional
all any one (none?)
Although there certainly are good uses for a Cnone superpositional:
push list, $newval
if $newval eq none(list);
print In range\n
Brent Dax wrote:
Larry Wall:
# We're obviously missing the force to string context, negate
# operator. :-)
Which would create a superposition of all strings besides the given one,
right? (Oh crap, I think I gave Damian an idea... :^) )
The C~none operator covers that quite nicely:
$not_foo
On top of which, Damian has expressed an interest in ! for a
superpositional xor.
Which would behave how, exactly?
Well, that's still a matter for conjecture.
N-ary xor isn't particularly useful, because binary xor naturally generalizes
to: an odd number of these N operands are true. (Hint:
Brent Dax wrote:
Can the new nefarious use be concat? Pretty please?
There was a brief period 18 months ago when tilde *was* the designated
Perl 6 concatenation operator.
I certainly wouldn't mind seeing it return to that role, now that
it's not needed elsewhere. And, of course, that would
Adam D. Lopresto wrote:
Really what I've been wishing for was an operator (or whatever) to let me do an
s// without changing the variable.
I would hope/expect that that's what the subroutine form of Cs would do.
That is, it takes a string, a pattern, and a replacement string,
and returns a
Josh Jore wrote:
Would it be correct for this to print 0? Would it be correct for this
to print 2?
my $n = 0;
aargh =~ /a* { $n++ } aargh/;
print $n;
Yes. ;-)
Wouldn't that print 2 if $n is lexical
Err. It *is* lexical in this example.
and 0 if it's localized?
No. Without the
Steve Fink wrote:
What should this do:
my $x = the letter x;
print yes if $x =~ /the { $x .= ! } .* !/;
Does this print yes?
If it's allowed at all, I think the match should succeed.
print yes if helo =~ /hel { .pos-- } lo/;
This definitely has to work. But remember the call
Luke Palmer fretted:
This is terrible. Calling foo which calls bar mysteriously overwrites
$date? Why is $date changing? the programmer asks. He does an
exhaustive search through his code and finally says ohh, and has to
change all references to the inner $date to something like
Nicholas Clark wrote:
Related, I think: no-one answered my question about what happens when I
define
sub dumb ($var, var) {
...
}
and then call it with the pair var=$thing
Exception, probably. Perhaps the error would be something like:
Dumb ambiguous binding of dumb named parameter
John Williams wrote:
Back in October I suggested that $a ^+= b would act like reduce,
but in discussion
it was decided that it would act like length
I now pose the question: Is ^+= a hyper assignment operator or an
assignment hyper operator?
with a scalar involved
the method and
Erik Steven Harrison wrote:
Just found this hidden in my inbox.
I didn't think anyone was paying attention ;-).
Oh, we *always* pay attention. We just don't always respond. ;-)
What I most like about the Cis syntax is (like methods in
OO Perl), it associates a meaningful *name* with each
Erik Steven Harrison wrote:
But still, what counts as a runtime property, other than true or
false, as in the delightful '0 but true'? What other kind of runtime
labels can I slap on a value?
Here's ten to start with...
for but tainted(0) {...} # note that external data is
Steve Canfield wrote:
I was under the impression that compile time properties, like runtime
properties, can be arbitrarily invented and/or assigned.
Yes, but not purely lower-case ones. They're reserved for Perl 6 itself.
(i.e. only Larry can invent/assign them ;-)
If that is
correct, why
David Helgason wrote:
[worry #1]
The hypothetical 'variables' we bind to aren't really variables but keys to a hash.
Welcome to Perl 6. Where *no* variable is really a variable, but all are keys to
a hash (which is known as the symbol table) ;-)
Thus they shouldn't have sigils in their
David Helgason wrote:
Coming to think of it, why have a named variable at all? If the
match object gets returned anyhow there is no need for a cleverly
named magical variable ($0, $MATCH, ...).
Probably for the same reason that we have $1, $2, $_, etc.
Because people are lazy. :-)
Damian
Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
Because what you do with a hypothetical has to be reversible.
I thought it was just the hypothetical's existence that has to be
reversible.
That's not my understanding. You need to be able to cope with this too:
rule alias :w { \$ $name:=ident [is named
Peter Behroozi wrote:
sub hidden (str $name, int $force is aka($override)) {...}
Hang on a moment! In your original answer to this question, you used
the is named('alias') syntax, but now you are suggesting using the
sigil in the syntax.
Yes, but for a *different* property.
The
Ken Fox wrote:
Excellent. Will there be an abstract syntax for tree
rewriting or is it Perl 6 all the way down?
I'd expect it to be Perl all the way down. Though a
tree rewriting module might make it seem abstract. ;-)
This is really amazing stuff. I was expecting some
support for
Trey Harris wrote:
A more practical application would be:
my $foo;
# Code which might or might not set $foo...
$foo //= 23;
# or
$foo is default(23);
In such a case, the Cis default just looks plain odd to me.
It is. More than that, it's plain wrong. Cis properties are
Erik Steven Harrison wrote:
Is it just me or is the 'is' property syntax a little
too intuitive? Seems like everywhere I turn, the
proposed syntax to solve a problem is to apply a
property.
That's because most of the problems we're discussing are solved
by changing the semantics of a
Erik Steven Harrison wrote:
I know that the property syntax is pseudo established,
but I'm beggining to become a bit jaded about all the
built in properties were building. What about good ol'
aliases?
sub hidden (str $name, int $force := $override) {...}
I'm not keen on it because it
Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
This continues to make no sense to me. The hypotheticality of a
variable seems quite orthogonal to what you do with it (bind, assign,
whatever). Why should these two things be intimate?
Because what you do with a hypothetical has to be reversible.
And binding is
Ken Fox wrote:
I'm messing around with regex code generation by
converting first to a grammar. The modifiers seem
to need intimate knowledge of regex - grammar
conversion. This may be a quirk of my approach.
People using tree traversal or generating code
directly from the regex might see
Ken Fox wrote:
/ $x := (gr\w+) /vs/ (gr\w+) { let $x = $1 } /
Shouldn't they both use C := ?
They should. The second version is a typo. It should be:
/ (gr\w+) { let $x := $1 } /
Depends on what you want. The $x := in the rule binds the
Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
How can you be sure that roundascii is
implemented as a character class instead of being some other arbitrary
rule? An answer is that perl should know how these things are
implemented and if you try arithmetic on something that's not a
character class, it should
Peter Behroozi wrote:
Has anyone considered a syntax for allowing subroutines to have many
different names for the same argument?
If it were allowed, it would probably be done via properties instead:
sub hidden (str $name, int $force, int $override is aka($force)) { ... }
Damian
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sub hidden (str $name, int $force, int $override is aka($force))
{ ... }
Would the following be simpler...?
sub hidden (str $name, int $force is aka($override))
{ ... }
Yeah, that's what I meant.
Sorry. I've travelled 14,000 miles and given 93 hours of
Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
It seems odd to require two syntactic elements to achieve one semantic.
And actually, after looking at A5, that's not what Larry wrote:
my $x;
/ (\S*) { let $x = .pos } \s* foo /
A typo, I believe. He has been very consistent in
Dan Sugalski wrote:
Dan, can you explain what multimethod dispatch is?
Damian can explain it better than I can,
I thought you did a great job!
However, anyone who wants to know more about multiple dispatch
might also like to read:
Trey Harris wrote:
So, each time I use a hypothetical, I have to be concious of which
variables are currently in scope? Perl can't help be with this task
because how does it know if I meant to hypothetically clobber that
lexical or store something in the match object. This is only really a
Ken Fox wrote:
The thing I'd like to do right now is turn on :w
for all rules. A Fortran grammar might want to turn
on :i for all rules.
Maybe add modifiers to the grammar declaration?
grammar Fortran :i { ... }
Maybe. Or a property:
grammar Fortran is modified(:i) { ... }
Uri Guttman wrote:
so what that attribute does is force the hash to keep all pairs as
single objects. but what about run time control of it? sometimes you
might want a list of pairs to be handled like pairs and other times you
want pairs to be scalars in a hash assignment. is there any way
Adam D. Lopresto wrote:
That's pretty close to what I was thinking of, but I don't think the
constructors actually have to be special. What if my Date $date; lets the
compiler know that $date belongs to the Date class, even if it's undef? If
that's the case you could call static functions
Graham Barr wrote:
I would say it is not always redundant to specify the type on both
sides
my Dog $dog = Greyhound.new('black');
Sure. But it's the redundant case we were trying to simplify.
And, furthermore, that you could easily define special semantics
for void-context
Trey Harris wrote:
An alias? Isn't
class Date is Really::Long::Package::Name::Ugh;
a new class declaration, declaring 'Date' as a subclass of
Really::Long::Package::Name::Ugh?
Yes. It's not an alias.
it will have a similar effect to aliasing Really::Long::Package::Name::Ugh
Nicholas Clark wrote:
So, based on what I remember about variables, would
class Date := Really::Long::Package::Name::Ugh;
express aliasing of classes?
By analogy to:
my $date := $really::long::variable::name::ugh;
yes.
If Larry allows aliasing of classnames at all, that is.
Mike Lambert wrote:
class Date is Really::Long::Package::Name::Ugh;
class DateManipulator;
our Date $date2manip;
...date manip methods here...
An external class is thus unable to do:
$DateManipulator::date2manip = new Really::Long::Package::Name::Ugh()
Is that correct?
Yes. You
Uri Guttman wrote:
but what about mixing pairs and scalars which was the core of this
thread?
Then you get whatever behaviour you defined the hash to give.
by default it seems assigning such a list to a hash would use
the pairs as 2 elements
It's not the right way to think about what
Uri Guttman wrote:
but what simon was saying (and i agree) is the the pair IS a single
item. it becomes the key and its value is 'scalars'.
No. If it's a PAIR, then its key is the key and its value is the value.
hashes can now take objects as keys and won't just stringify them.
Correct.
David Wheeler wrote:
Yes, but this:
my Really::Long::Package::Name::Ugh $date is now {.init 'June 25,
2002' };
Is shorter than this:
my Really::Long::Package::Name::Ugh $date =
Really::Long::Package::Name::Ugh.new( 'June 25, 2002' );
It's not the short package names like
HellyerP wrote:
This week I was fortunate enough to hear Damian speak twice, once on
everything and once on Perl6. Damian, it was tremendous of you to come
and speak to us in London - thank-you very much.
It was my pleasure.
If he's coming to a city near you, book
your seats now.
Nicholas Clark asked:
%hash3 = kv_array
Is perl6 going to spot that kv_array has an even number of entries, all
are scalars (no pairs), and so do this
for kv_array - key, value {
%hash3{$key} = $value;
}
Yes. Just like in Perl 5.
Or is it going to treat non-pairs
Trey Harris wrote:
sub repeat is multi ($desc is valued(1), body) {
body(1);
}
sub repeat is multi ($desc is valued(0), body) {
}
sub repeat is multi ($desc is valued(['A'..'F']), body) {
die Can't repeat hexadecimally;
This is very nice.
Piers Cawley wrote:
If I replace C ($key, $val) with
ary = m/$pattern/
and the match succeeds, how many elements are there in ary?
Zero. No explicit captures in that pattern.
Suppose you want to use a hypothetical variable to bind a name to
a capture:
/
Aaron Sherman wrote:
Is C\n going to be a rule (e.g. C eol )
There might be an named rule like that. But C\n will certainly
still be available.
or is it implicitly translated to:
[\x0a\x0d...]+
No. It will be equivalent to:
[\x0a\x0d...]
(no repetition)
Along those
Larry wrote:
:my $date = Date.new('June 25, 2002');
Assignment is wrong for conferring compile-time properties, I think.
Agreed. For a start, it's too late. The declaration is compile-time;
the assignment, run-time.
We almost need some kind of topicalization:
my Date $date =
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.
Piers wrote:
Not exactly DWIM, but how about:
my $stuff = /^\s* [ (.*?) | (\S+) ] : { $foo := $+ }/;
Assuming $+ means 'the last capture group matched' as it does now.
Or just:
my $stuff = /^\s* [ $foo:=(.*?) | $foo:=(\S+) ]/;
BTW, that doesn't actually *do* the match. It
Sean O'Rourke wrote:
I hope this is wrong, because if not, it breaks this:
if 1 { do something }
foo $x;
in weird ways. Namely, it gets parsed as:
if(1, sub { do something }, foo($x));
which comes out as wrong number of arguments to `if', which is just
strange.
Any
Debbie Pickett wrote:
So . . correct me if I'm wrong . . .
Crule allows us to define both named and anonymous rules,
Yes.
depending on context.
Depending on whether or not you provide a name.
Crx allows us to define only anonymous rules.
Yes. And they can't take parameter lists.
Markus Laire asked:
So, would this be right short explanation:
o: backtrack fails preceding atom (as atom fails, it's skipped)
o:: backtrack fails surrounding group (OK)
o::: backtrack fails rule (OK)
ocommitbacktrack fails whole match
So
Not quite arbitrary. Alphanumerics aren't allowed, nor are colon or
parens.
Of course. I didn't want to poison my entire sentence with footnotes
for the obvious exceptions.
Yes. It wasn't directed at you particularly, but at those for whom the
exception isn't obvious. The problem being, of
Luke Palmer wrote:
Hang on... I thought parens weren't allowed as delimiters. Or does that
not apply to rx()?
Well, yes, we *did* say that in A5 and E5.
But we were thinking of m// and s/// in particular and of patterns with
modifiers (which might take argument lists) in general.
For an
Glenn Linderman asked:
So one thing that bothers me in the whole discussion of rule vs rx
differences and similarities, is that there was a previous discussion
that said regular expression and regex should be deprecated terms
because the rules and patterns are no longer regular, but if rx
Simon Cozens wrote:
While I'm messing about with REs, is it specified how :any and hypotheticals
interoperate?
ab =~ rx:any / $match := (\w) /;
print $match;
Can that be undefined behaviour? Please? :)
I don't think so.
It would probably result in $0 containing an array of match
Paul Marquess wrote:
Is that the soon to be released E5?
No, that's the to be released today E5.
;-)
Damian
Tim Bunce wrote:
Personally, I'm deprecating regex and its variants in my own writing and
speaking, and trying to stick to rule and pattern.
Using pattern in general and rule in the context of a grammar?
Using pattern for the contents and rule for the container.
But not being too much of
Trey Harris asked:
Another one...
class Foo is Bar;
method a {
setup();
}
1;
# EOF
(Is the 1 still required?
No.
I think I heard Damian say it was going away.)
Yes.
The question is, is this valid, if Bar defines a sub/static method
'setup'?
If Csetup is a Csub, yes.
Chris Dutton wrote:
and this just jumped out at me:
class Foo {
private string|int bar;
static create(string|int newBar) {
bar = newBar;
}
}
In other words, as I understand it, you can type the variable bar as
either an int or a string.
Aside from simply,
Miko O'Sullivan wrote:
OK, would that notation ( arr[] = $var ) be something that could be added
by a module, in the same way that operators and /* */ will be addable? I
don't know exactly what the syntax for adding /* */ will be
Something like this:
grammar
Miko O'Sullivan aksed:
what would true (the string) be converted to?
In a numeric context: 0 (as in Perl 5).
Here's my point more
explicitly: in a boolean context, there's no need to get any specific string
(0, 1, yup) as long as it correctly expresses true or false. It's when
you
Having the subscript operator change the topic is, IMHO, a rather strong
violation of the principle of least surprise.
I'm inclined to agree. I think I'd much rather not have it change there,
since I'll frequently do stuff like this:
my %hash;
for qw(one two three) {
%hash{$_} =
Ashley Winters asked:
It *might* possibly work to hyper the constructor:
my ($a, $b) = ^new Foo
Would prefix ^ always return 'wanted' number of repetitions? Like a
smart Cx Inf?
This does bother me about the above proposed syntax/semantics. Hyperoperations
take their magnitude
Ashley Winters wrote:
How about:
$_ = new Doberman for my Dog ($spot, $rover) is rw;
grin I don't think so.
In Perl 6 you'd just need:
$_ = new Doberman for $spot, $rover;
Or, if you really did want that strong type-checking:
for $spot, $rover - Dog $dog is rw { $dog =
will perl6 still support the indirect object syntax? i thought it was
going away and that would be:
Doberman.new
That works too, but the indirect object syntax isn't going away.
TMTOWTDI, after all.
also is $_ an lvalue alias (topic) for $spot and $rover?
Yep. Only *named*
Ashley Winters wrote:
$_ = new Doberman for $spot, $rover;
Hmm, I thought the for topic was made ro at some point. Odd.
Not the standard $_ topic. Only named topics default to read-only.
However, I still expect to be able to use my() in a loop condition/iterator
and have it
Comments (otherwise you have things pretty much right):
Every subrotine or variable or method or object can have a notes (out of bound
data)
out-of-band data
we can even have hyper-assignment :
my ($a, $b) ^= new Foo;
This is unlikely to do what you wanted. It creates a new Foo object
: we can even have hyper-assignment :
:
: my ($a, $b) ^= new Foo;
:
: This is unlikely to do what you wanted. It creates a new Foo object and then
: assigns a reference to that one object to both $a and $b. It doesn't create two
: Foo objects. (But maybe one object referenced twice is
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Summary of some of the new Perl 6 constructs]
I have answered your questions and made a few comments.
Apart from these what you wrote is accurate.
Damian
-cut--cut--cut--cut--cut-
my $x is foo = 0;
Now $x.foo is equal to 1
I've seen in theDamian Sypnosys following code :
$val = $key
That's not code, that's the contents of a regex.
And it's a joke: that's a less-than-or-equals comparison.
Damian
Larry has previously mentioned the prospect of Perl 6 module names being extended to
include version number and author.
If this were to be done, would seem reasonable for the author component to simply be
the author's CPAN username. These are guaranteed unique, are frequently mnemonic, are
Larry has previously mentioned the prospect of Perl 6 module names being extended to
include version number and author.
If this were to be done, would seem reasonable for the author component to simply be
the author's CPAN username. These are guaranteed unique, are frequently mnemonic, are
Luke Palmer wrote:
I know you heavyweights are working out how to specify the return value
from a rule or a capture.
Larry says if the hypothetical variable $0 is assigned to, that assigned
value becomes the (only) return value of the rule. It's an elegant solution
to the problem.
Now,
I'm still unclear as to how you implement lex-like longest token rule with
P6 regexes. If the | operator grabs the first one it matches, how do I
match bacamus out of this?:
bacamus =~ / b.*a | b.*s /
Borrow this trick from Parse::RecDescent:
rule max (*@candidates) {{
I came across this problem when writing the vim syntax file:
How can we tell the difference between these?:
m:option(pattern)
m:option(argument)/pattern/
Easy. As A5 states, (...) are no longer leagal regex delimiters.
So the first is a syntax error.
:-)
Damian
Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
rule val {
[ # quoted
$b := [']
( [ \\. | . ]*? )
$b
] | # or not
(\H+)
}
Not quite. Assigning to $b is a capture.
I'm confused. The examples in A5 all show $var := (pattern). So are you
saying that
Richard Nuttall wrote:
I have no doubt that, once Perl 6 is available, we'll see a
rash of modules released in the Grammar:: namespace.
Including Grammar::Romana,
Grammar::Klingon, Grammar::Buffy, Grammer::Mispelt, and others... :-)
Grammar::Python, Grammar::Ruby, Grammar::PHP ?
I
Uri Guttman asked:
now, why does $0.{comment} refer to the internal regex and not the outer
one?
Technically, $0 refers to the *match object* of the inner regex, not the inner regex
itself.
is it because of it being in the closure?
Yes. And because $0 is lexically scoped.
could you
Trey Harris wrote:
On second reading, it occurs to me that this wouldn't work quite right,
because the :w would imply a \s+ between lt and identifier, between
the equals, and before the gt.
No. Under :w you get \s+ between literal sequences that are potential identifiers, and
\s* between
Erik Steven Harrison henched:
Ahhh, duh . . . Docter Claw . . .er Conway, uh, the Python always throws up
Perl Coders . . . Shoulds we maybe bash him with the Giant Shell, or TCL him
to death . . .
EvilScientist face=red
Dammit, you fools! Do I have to think of *everything*??? Just tie him
Dave Storrs yiked:
Yikes. Ok, I obviously badly misunderstood that. I'll go back
and reread it. So, can you provide an example of a pattern nested
within a closure, since I obviously didn't understand?
Sure:
m/ if { /comment? ::: keyword/ and print $0.{comment} } /
The
Dave Storrs wrote:
I admit I'm a bit nervous about that...so far, I'm completely sold on
(basically) all the new features and changes in Perl 6, and I'm eagerly
anticipating working with them. But this level of change...I don't know.
I've spent a lot of time getting to be (reasonaly) good
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Likewise, could we please have a modifier that makes literal, and aliases
as something else so *ml can match easier?
I very much doubt it.
But I'm sure someone will eventually write the five-line (!) module that
changes
assertion to assertion, thereby freeing up
John Siracusa wrote:
I have no doubt that, once Perl 6 is available, we'll see a rash of modules
released in the Grammar:: namespace. Including Grammar::HTML and Grammar::XML.
Why not just make Grammar::DTD, and then make Grammar::Generator::FromDTD.
Then use those to make all the other
Page 13 tells use about Clet decls. But it also says that the topic must
be a regex. Whilst it explains that this isn't really a problem, I'm not
sure that it justifies it. So perhaps someone can clarify why this
(hypothetical) code in not a reasonable generalization:
Because Perl code
You have Ino idea how often that would have been useful. It's a great
exception safety mechanism... like C++'s resource aquisition is
initialization thingy, but without having to write a class for every
variable.
Have you already forgotten KEEP and UNDO (that we introduced in A4/E4):
David Whipp wrote:
First, a slight clarification: if I say:
m:w/ %foo := [ (\w+) = (\w+) [ , (\w+) ]* ] /
does this give me a hash of arrays? (i.e. is the rhs of a hash processed as
a scalar context)
That's an error. The grouping bound to a hypothetical hash has to have
either
Rich Morin wrote:
I'd like to be able to use REs to generate lists of strings. For
example, it might be nice to create a loop such as:
for $i (sort(p:p5|[0-9A-F]{2}|)) { # p operator for production?
and have $i walk from '00' through 'FF'. Or whatever.
You mean:
$ch =
Brent Dax wrote:
grammar Perl6::Regex {
rule metachar { [{(\[\])}:*+?\\|]}
rule ws { [[\h\v]|\#\N*]*}
Or just:
rule ws { [\s|\#\N*]* }
rule atom { ws (!metachar | \\ . | group) ws }
601 - 700 of 1091 matches
Mail list logo
