Re: Flexible parsing (was Tying Overloading)

2001-04-30 Thread Tim Bunce
On Sat, Apr 28, 2001 at 03:44:25PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote: Dan Sugalski writes: : I hadn't really considered having a separate module for each type of site : policy decision. Er, neither had I. Each site only has one policy file. I just want it named after the actual site, not some

Re: Flexible parsing (was Tying Overloading)

2001-04-29 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 03:44 PM 4/28/2001 -0700, Larry Wall wrote: Dan Sugalski writes: : I hadn't really considered having a separate module for each type of site : policy decision. Er, neither had I. Each site only has one policy file. I just want it named after the actual site, not some generic name like

Re: Flexible parsing (was Tying Overloading)

2001-04-29 Thread Michael G Schwern
On Sat, Apr 28, 2001 at 02:44:17PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote: Well, I was thinking that generally the site policy would be expressed in a single file This smells strangely familiar. Alot like the .perlrc discussion that was had back many moons ago. The havoc a general syntax-altering policy

Re: Flexible parsing (was Tying Overloading)

2001-04-29 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 04:30 PM 4/29/2001 +0100, Michael G Schwern wrote: On Sat, Apr 28, 2001 at 02:44:17PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote: Well, I was thinking that generally the site policy would be expressed in a single file This smells strangely familiar. Alot like the .perlrc discussion that was had back

Re: Flexible parsing (was Tying Overloading)

2001-04-29 Thread Michael G Schwern
On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 11:44:24AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote: At 04:30 PM 4/29/2001 +0100, Michael G Schwern wrote: To use a Perl 5 example, consider the simple setting of use strict as a general site policy. Basicaly, most of the Perl code in your /usr/bin will explode when you try to run

Re: Flexible parsing (was Tying Overloading)

2001-04-29 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 05:37 PM 4/29/2001 +0100, Michael G Schwern wrote: On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 11:44:24AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote: At 04:30 PM 4/29/2001 +0100, Michael G Schwern wrote: To use a Perl 5 example, consider the simple setting of use strict as a general site policy. Basicaly, most of the Perl

Re: Flexible parsing (was Tying Overloading)

2001-04-29 Thread Michael G Schwern
On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 12:49:28PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote: At 05:37 PM 4/29/2001 +0100, Michael G Schwern wrote: By optional I take it you mean an admin can choose to define their own site policy or not? No. Optional in that you have to do a use SomePolicyThingWeHaventDecided; to put

Re: Flexible parsing (was Tying Overloading)

2001-04-29 Thread Michael G Schwern
On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 12:20:42PM -0700, Ask Bjoern Hansen wrote: don't know which archive you are talking about, but http://archive.develooper.com/perl6-language%40perl.org/ should have all mails sent to perl6-language from it's start to a few days ago when I moved stuff around. I think I

Re: Flexible parsing (was Tying Overloading)

2001-04-29 Thread Ask Bjoern Hansen
On Sun, 29 Apr 2001, Michael G Schwern wrote: Unfortunately, the perl6-language archive doesn't seem to go back far enough to cover the .perlrc discussion. Is the old archive still around? don't know which archive you are talking about, but

Re: Flexible parsing (was Tying Overloading)

2001-04-29 Thread John Porter
Damian Conway wrote: You Americans and your non-ISO penchant for putting the specific before the general. Surely that should be: use Policy::O::Reilly; I knew someone would argue that, but I didn't think it would be someone as illustrious as Damian. Do you think Larry doesn't know

Re: Flexible parsing (was Tying Overloading)

2001-04-29 Thread Damian Conway
You Americans and your non-ISO penchant for putting the specific before the general. Surely that should be: use Policy::O::Reilly; I knew someone would argue that, but I didn't think it would be someone as illustrious as Damian. Illustrious??? Do

Re: Flexible parsing (was Tying Overloading)

2001-04-29 Thread John Porter
Damian Conway wrote: If it's a policy, it should go under Policy:: If it's an OReilly site module, it should go under OReilly, eh? What's general and what's specific is entirely a matter of perspective, since OReilly and Policy are entirely orthogonal concepts. Surely you wouldn't condone

Re: Flexible parsing (was Tying Overloading)

2001-04-29 Thread ashley
If I work at OReilly, I don't need a Local:: in front of my OReilly to tell me that it's a local namespace. but you need OReilly in front? do you label your clothes Shirt and Pants as well? might be orthagonal but the top level should serve a useful purpose instead of something along the lines

Re: Flexible parsing (was Tying Overloading)

2001-04-29 Thread Simon Cozens
On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 05:06:03PM -0400, John Porter wrote: OReilly::Policy is (or might be) still general before specific. OReilly::* might be a whole family of site- specific modules. Policy::* is *guaranteed* to be a large family of site-specific modules, hopefully even larger than the

Re: Flexible parsing (was Tying Overloading)

2001-04-28 Thread Damian Conway
I think we have to be careful here. We should ask people to name site policy files after their site, and not use a generic name like site_policy, since we'd be likely to end up with 20 different standard site_policy files wandering around the net. So something like

Re: Flexible parsing (was Tying Overloading)

2001-04-28 Thread Larry Wall
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: : use OReilly::Policy; : : or : : use Mongolian::Navy::ProcurementOffice::Policy; : : might be more in order. : : You Americans and your non-ISO penchant for putting the specific before : the general. Surely that should be: : :

Re: Flexible parsing (was Tying Overloading)

2001-04-28 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 01:51 PM 4/27/2001 -0700, Larry Wall wrote: Dan Sugalski writes: : Besides, having the site administrator forbid the installation of parser : tweaks might not be what is wanted. If we get PPython in there, a site may : well have a Python.pm module handy, and source might start: : :use

Re: Flexible parsing (was Tying Overloading)

2001-04-28 Thread Larry Wall
Dan Sugalski writes: : I hadn't really considered having a separate module for each type of site : policy decision. Er, neither had I. Each site only has one policy file. I just want it named after the actual site, not some generic name like Policy. I think policy files are inherently

Re: Flexible parsing (was Tying Overloading)

2001-04-27 Thread Nicholas Clark
On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 11:04:33PM -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote: On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 02:28:58AM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote: On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 06:25:03PM -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote: In a sick way I kinda liked how compilers were able to give out error messages not unlike:

Re: Flexible parsing (was Tying Overloading)

2001-04-27 Thread Eric Roode
Larry Wall wrote: [wrt multiple syntaxes for Perl 6] In any event, I'm not worried about it, as long as people predeclare exactly which variant they're using. And I'm also not worried that we'll have any lack of style police trying to enforce Standard Perl 6. Larry As a member of a

Re: Flexible parsing (was Tying Overloading)

2001-04-27 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 04:19 PM 4/26/2001 -0700, Larry Wall wrote: Dan Sugalski writes: : And on the other hand you have things like Forth where every program : essentially defines its own variant of the language, and that works out : reasonably well. (Granted it's more of a niche language, especially today, : but

Re: Flexible parsing (was Tying Overloading)

2001-04-27 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 09:16 AM 4/27/2001 -0400, Eric Roode wrote: Larry Wall wrote: [wrt multiple syntaxes for Perl 6] In any event, I'm not worried about it, as long as people predeclare exactly which variant they're using. And I'm also not worried that we'll have any lack of style police trying to enforce

Re: Flexible parsing (was Tying Overloading)

2001-04-27 Thread Larry Wall
Dan Sugalski writes: : It's also the one reason that I really like the idea of policy files of : some sort, to allow sites that don't want this sort of thing to forbid it. : I'm not talking things like perl automagically loading policy files in. : Rather having use site_policy; set limits that

Re: Flexible parsing (was Tying Overloading)

2001-04-27 Thread John Porter
Larry Wall wrote: On the other hand, people don't generally declare which dialect they're going to speak in before they start speaking. On the other other hand, perl already embraces the philosophy of pre-declaring things that change the language. That's what a pragma is. Even my could be

Re: Flexible parsing (was Tying Overloading)

2001-04-27 Thread Larry Wall
John Porter writes: : Larry Wall wrote: : On the other hand, people don't generally declare which dialect they're : going to speak in before they start speaking. : : On the other other hand, perl already embraces the philosophy : of pre-declaring things that change the language. That's what

Re: Flexible parsing (was Tying Overloading)

2001-04-27 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 01:16 PM 4/27/2001 -0700, Larry Wall wrote: Dan Sugalski writes: : It's also the one reason that I really like the idea of policy files of : some sort, to allow sites that don't want this sort of thing to forbid it. : I'm not talking things like perl automagically loading policy files in. :

Re: Flexible parsing (was Tying Overloading)

2001-04-27 Thread Larry Wall
Dan Sugalski writes: : Besides, having the site administrator forbid the installation of parser : tweaks might not be what is wanted. If we get PPython in there, a site may : well have a Python.pm module handy, and source might start: : :use site_policy qw(Python); : : for modules that

Re: Flexible parsing (was Tying Overloading)

2001-04-26 Thread Larry Wall
Eric Roode writes: : John Porter wrote: : IIUC, this ability is precisely what Larry was saying Perl6 would have. : : I may have my history wrong here, but didn't Ada try that? Not at all. The syntax of Ada was nailed down tighter that almost any language that ever existed. : Super-flexible,

Re: Flexible parsing (was Tying Overloading)

2001-04-26 Thread Larry Wall
Dan Sugalski writes: : And on the other hand you have things like Forth where every program : essentially defines its own variant of the language, and that works out : reasonably well. (Granted it's more of a niche language, especially today, : but that's probably more due to its RPN syntax)

Re: Flexible parsing (was Tying Overloading)

2001-04-26 Thread Jarkko Hietaniemi
On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 04:13:30PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote: Eric Roode writes: : John Porter wrote: : IIUC, this ability is precisely what Larry was saying Perl6 would have. : : I may have my history wrong here, but didn't Ada try that? Not at all. The syntax of Ada was nailed down

Re: Flexible parsing (was Tying Overloading)

2001-04-26 Thread Simon Cozens
On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 06:25:03PM -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote: In a sick way I kinda liked how compilers were able to give out error messages not unlike: foo.ada: line 231: Violation of sections 7.8.3, 9.11.5b and 10.0.16: see the LRM. Ever used the Mac C compiler? -- Language shapes

Re: Flexible parsing (was Tying Overloading)

2001-04-26 Thread Jarkko Hietaniemi
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 02:28:58AM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote: On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 06:25:03PM -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote: In a sick way I kinda liked how compilers were able to give out error messages not unlike: foo.ada: line 231: Violation of sections 7.8.3, 9.11.5b and

Re: Flexible parsing (was Tying Overloading)

2001-04-25 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 01:36 PM 4/25/2001 -0400, Eric Roode wrote: John Porter wrote: Dan Sugalski wrote: The one downside is that you'd have essentially your own private language. Whether this is a bad thing or not is a separate issue, of course. IIUC, this ability is precisely what Larry was saying

Re: Flexible parsing (was Tying Overloading)

2001-04-25 Thread Eric Roode
John Porter wrote: Dan Sugalski wrote: The one downside is that you'd have essentially your own private language. Whether this is a bad thing or not is a separate issue, of course. IIUC, this ability is precisely what Larry was saying Perl6 would have. I may have my history wrong here, but