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
On 6/6/02 2:43 AM, Damian Conway wrote:
rule wordlist { (\w+) [ , (\w+) ]* }
No semicolon at the end of that line? I've already forgotten the new
rules for that type of thing... :)
-John
On Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 10:38:39AM -0400, John Siracusa wrote:
On 6/6/02 2:43 AM, Damian Conway wrote:
rule wordlist { (\w+) [ , (\w+) ]* }
No semicolon at the end of that line? I've already forgotten the new
rules for that type of thing... :)
No, because rules are basically methods,
Allison Randal [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 10:38:39AM -0400, John Siracusa wrote:
On 6/6/02 2:43 AM, Damian Conway wrote:
rule wordlist { (\w+) [ , (\w+) ]* }
No semicolon at the end of that line? I've already forgotten the new
rules for that type of thing... :)
On Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 08:21:25PM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
Allison Randal [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, because rules are basically methods, just like grammars are
basically classes. You would only need a semi-colon if you were defining
an anonymous Crule (similar to an anonymous
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)
When I look at this, I see a common pattern: the join/split concept. It
feels like there should be a standard
