On Wed 16 Mar, Rod Adams wrote:
I vote for axing Cquotemeta in favor of Cq:meta// and Cq:m//.
Given A05 states that bare scalars match literally, quotemeta is (almost?)
obsolete. It can certainly be downgraded.
Richard
--
Personal [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.waveney.org
How equivalent are and «?
Does use of one idiom imply the closing quote is the same.
ie are the following allowed, prohibited or what?
list of words»
«list of words
Just thinking...
Richard
--
Personal [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.waveney.org
Telecoms [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun 19 Sep, Jonadab the Unsightly One wrote:
Archimedes. It doesn't allow them at all, from what I understand.
It probably doesn't disallow file extensions [per se], but the dot
Could be. I haven't used it personally.
The name should be Risc-OS - the Archimedes is one of the
On Fri 17 Sep, Larry Wall wrote:
$?fileWhich file am I in?
$?lineWhich line am I at?
$?package Which package am I in?
@?package Which packages am I in?
$?module Which module am I in?
@?module Which modules am I in?
$?class Which class am I in?
On Fri 17 Sep, Larry Wall wrote:
: $?osWhich operating system am I operating on
Again, which OS am I compiled on, or at best, which OS does the compiler
think I'm compiling for, in the case of cross-compilation.
Therefore should:
$?os Be which operating system it is being
On Sun 05 Sep, David Green wrote:
On 2004/9/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonathan Lang) wrote:
(Nice Subject change, I almost missed it!)
Larry Wall wrote:
Yow. Presumably nth without an argument would mean the last.
If it means the last, why not just use Clast?
Conflict with last LOOP?
I am not happy about the versioning proposal.
While A12 listed many properties that could apply to a a module such as
version, subject, author etc, the versioning declaration
class Dog-1.2.1-cpan:JRANDOM;
leaves me a little cold.
Issues:
1) Why does this only use Version and Author?
If one has a simple sub such as factorial:
sub factorial(int $a) {...}
then one subsequently declares the multi form of factorial to pick up the
non-integer form:
multi factorial(num $a) {...}
Does this promote the original declaration of factorial to a multi?
if not what happens?
Richard
On Wed 12 Mar, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
On Tuesday, March 11, 2003, at 12:39 PM, Austin Hastings wrote:
You want Cmulti to tell the compiler to build in multiple dispatch.
Any invocation of Cfoo after Cmulti foo is going to be a penny
dropped into the great Pachinko game of
On Wed 11 Dec, Simon Cozens quoted:
No proper program contains an indication which as an operator-applied
occurrence identifies an operator-defining occurrence which as an
indication- applied occurrence identifies an indication-defining occurrence
different from the one identified by the
On Thu 05 Dec, Michael G Schwern wrote:
So here's your essay topic:
Explain how having indexes (arrays, substr, etc...) in Perl 6 start at 0
will benefit most users. Do not invoke legacy. [1]
[1] ie. because that's how most other languages do it or everyone is
used to it by now are not
On Thu 14 Nov, Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 12:19:47PM +, Andy Wardley wrote:
Can we overload + in Perl 6 to work as both numeric addition
and string concatenation, depending on the type of the operand
on the left?
There have been times when I have wondered if
On Wed 06 Nov, Piers Cawley wrote:
miniparrot, a first attempt
If you've been paying attention to the Parrot build process, you'll be
aware that it was always a goal to use a cut down variant of parrot
itself to run the configuration tests. The plan is that this miniparrot
This UTF discussion has got silly.
I am sitting at a computer that is operating in native Latin-1 and is
quite happy - there is no likelyhood that UTF* is ever likely to reach it.
The Gillemets are coming through fine, but most of the other heiroglyphs need
a lot to be desired.
Lets consider
On Tue 05 Nov, Smylers wrote:
Richard Proctor wrote:
I am sitting at a computer that is operating in native Latin-1 and is
quite happy - there is no likelyhood that UTF* is ever likely to reach
it.
... Therefore the only addition characters that could be used, that
will work under
On Wed 30 Oct, Larry Wall wrote:
An earlier message had something like this as a hyper:
@a = @b[.method];
That absolutely won't work, because [.method] is a valid subscript.
In this case it would have to be written
@a = @b[.]method;
But the general problem is just about
Larry,
Wow, that was a very good demolition and rebuilding of the regex edifice.
When the RFCs were being written I spent many hours thinking over some
of the issues and writting many of the RFCs on regexes, trying to build on
what was in perl5, without changing the existing language use. By
On Sun 20 Jan, Me wrote:
On Saturday 19 January 2002 22:05, Brent Dax wrote:
Is this list of special blocks complete and correct?
BEGIN Executes at the beginning of compilation
CHECK Executes at the end of compilation
INIT Executes at the beginning of run
END Executes at the
On Fri 18 May, Damian Conway wrote:
Ed wrote:
Can 'undef' valued thingys have properties
Yes.
and functions?
No.
Why not?
Richard
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
In Apocalypse 2, \Q is being used for two things, and I believe this may be
ambiguious.
It has the current \Quote meaning admitibly \Q{oute} it is also being
proposed for a null token disambiguate context. As in $foo\Q[bar].
But if it is spliting $foo and {this is in curlies} this will be
On Fri 06 Apr, Dan Sugalski wrote:
This is, I presume, in addition to any sort of inherent DWIMmery? I don't
see any reason that:
@foo[1,2] = STDIN;
shouldn't read just two lines from that filehandle, for example, nor why
Fair enough
@bar = @foo * 12;
shouldn't assign to
On Fri 06 Apr, John Porter wrote:
Richard Proctor wrote:
but what should
@bar = @foo x 2;
do? Repeat @foo twice or repeat each element twice? (its current
behaviour is less than useless, other than for JAPHs)
How is one significantly less useful than the other?
Its current
On Fri, 29 Sep 2000 01:02:40 +0100, Hugo wrote:
It also isn't clear what parts of the expression are interpolated at
compile time; what should the following leave in %foo?
%foo = ();
$bar = "one";
"twothree" =~ / (?$bar=two) (?$foo{$bar}=three) /x;
It's not just that. You act
HI Tom,
Welcome to England (I presume)
This seems very complicated. Did you look at the Ram:6 recipe on
expressing AND, OR, and NOT in a regex? For example, to do
/FOO/ /BAR/ you need not write /FOO.*BAR|BAR.*FOO/ -- and in
fact, should not, as it doesn't work properly on some pairs!
On Wed 27 Sep, Dave Storrs wrote:
On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, Richard Proctor wrote:
Both \1 and $1 refer to what is matched by the first set of parens in a
regex. AFAIK, the only difference between these two notation is that
\1 is used within the regex itself and $1 is used outside
Simon,
This has been on the Perl 5 to-do list for ages and ages. The idea is
that when you're transliterating a bunch of things, you want to know
how many of each of them matched in your original string.
While this may be a fun thing to do - why? what is the application?
Richard
On Sun 24 Sep, Hugo wrote:
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Richard Proctor
writes
:
:TomCs perl storm has:
:
: Figure out way to do
:
: /$e1 $e2/
:
: safely, where $e1 might have '(foo) \1' in it.
: and $e2 might have '(bar) \1' in it. Those won't work.
:
:If e1 and e2 are qr// type
TomCs perl storm has:
Figure out way to do
/$e1 $e2/
safely, where $e1 might have '(foo) \1' in it.
and $e2 might have '(bar) \1' in it. Those won't work.
If e1 and e2 are qr// type things the answer might be to localise
the backref numbers in each qr// expression.
If they
On Fri 15 Sep, Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 06:38:37PM +0100, Richard Proctor wrote:
1) removes whitespace equivalent to the terminator (e) this is largely
backward complatible as many existing heredocs are unlikely to have white
space before the terminator.
2
needs to match (.*)((["'`])(\w+)\2)|(\w+))(.*) or something like that.
Richard Proctor
In Michael Schwerns prototype, expansion to treat both semicolons and comments
at the end tag is possible by changing
/^(\s*)$curr_tag\s*$/
to
/^(\s*)$curr_tag\s*(;\s*)?(#.*)?$/
Richard
This whole debate has got silly.
RFC 111 V1 covered both the whitespace on the terminator and the
indenting - there was a lot of debate that this was two things - more were
in favour of the terminator and there was more debate on the indenting.
Therefore I split this into two RFCs leaving
This whole debate has got silly.
RFC 111 V1 covered both the whitespace on the terminator and the
indenting - there was a lot of debate that this was two things - more were
in favour of the terminator and there was more debate on the indenting.
Therefore I split this into two RFCs leaving
On Wed 13 Sep, Bart Lateur wrote:
On Tue, 12 Sep 2000 19:01:35 -0400, Mark-Jason Dominus wrote:
I don't know what you mean, but you're mistaken, because it means to
interpolate @foo as in a double-quoted string.
Which is precisely the meaning he wants for it, with $" set to '|'.
I
On Mon 11 Sep, Mark-Jason Dominus wrote:
(?@foo) is sort of equivalent to (??{join('|',@foo)}), ie it expands into
a list of alternatives. One could possible use just @foo, for this.
It just occurs to me that this is already possible. I've written a
module, 'atq', such that if you
(proto RFC possibly, and some generalised ramblings)
Given that expansion of regexes could include (+...) and (*...) I have been
thinking about providing a general purpose way of adding functionality.
I propose that the entire (+...) syntax is kept free from formal
specification for this and
This list has gone a little quiet...
Hugo wrote:
I like this too. I'd suggest /t should mean a) return a scalar of
the number of matches and b) don't set any special variables. Then
/t without /g would return 0 or 1, but be faster since no extra
information need be captured (except
This RFC had three concepts, I propose dropping the "Not a pattern" from here
as it is now in RFC 198 and the null element. The List expansion might
benefit from a slight enhancement.
Hugo:
(?@foo) and (?Q@foo) are both things I've wanted before now. I'm
not sure if this is the right syntax,
On Fri 08 Sep, Kevin Walker wrote:
(This thread has been inactive for a while. See
http://www.mail-archive.com/perl6-language-regex@perl.org/index.html#0
0015 for it's short history.)
Long ago Tom Christiansen wrote:
This is useful in that it would stop being number dependent.
For
On Wed 06 Sep, Mark-Jason Dominus wrote:
I've been thinking the same thing. It seems to me that the attempts to
shoehorn parsers into regex syntax have either been unsuccessful
(yielding an underpowered extension) or illegible or both.
SNOBOL:
parenstring = '(' *parenstring ')'
On Tue 05 Sep, Nathan Wiger wrote:
"normal" "reversed"
-- ---
103301
99aa99
(( ))
+ +
{{[!_ _!]}}
{__A1( )A1__}
That is, when a bracket is encountered, the "reverse" of
On Tue 05 Sep, David Corbin wrote:
Nathan Wiger wrote:
But, how about a new ?m operator?
/(?m|[).*?(?M|])/;
Let's combine yor operator with my example from above where everything
inside the (?m) or the ?(M)
fits the syntax of a RE.
/(?m()|\[).*?(?M()|(\]))
On Mon 28 Aug, Eric Roode wrote:
Richard Proctor proposed:
All of these should work:
print EOL;
EOL
print EOL;
EOL
print EOL ;
EOL # this is the end of the here doc
People may throw rocks at me for this, but I'd like to suggest that
not only
On Mon 28 Aug, Bart Lateur wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2000 10:38:42 -0400 (EDT), Eric Roode wrote:
People may throw rocks at me for this, but I'd like to suggest that
not only is a comment allowed on the terminator line, but a semicolon
also be allowed. Vis:
print EOL;
EOL; # This
On Mon 28 Aug, Bart Lateur wrote:
On 27 Aug 2000 19:23:51 -, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
It only removes whitespace,
and it measures whitespace with tabs=8.
My editor is set to tabs=4. Perl's interpretation wouldn't agree with
the visual appearance in my editor. This doesn't sound
On Fri 25 Aug, Nathan Wiger wrote:
I was sorta going under the assumption that would cause leading and
trailing whitespace to be ignored (not stripped) when looking for the
end-of-here-doc indicator. Because whitespace is ignored, I was then
proposing some new syntax for stripping
part of many regexs this is not easy. (The
keyword there is PART).
* Using the pattern returned from some function as part of a regex
* Using an array of "words" as an alternate list as part of a regex
* Fill your idea in here [ ]
Richard Proctor
[ Years ago I did
47 matches
Mail list logo
