> > > Dave Storrs wrote:
> > > Can we please have a 'reverse x' modifier that means "treat whitespace as
> > > literals"? Yes, we are living in a Unicode world now and your data could
> > >
> > > /FATAL ERROR\:Process (\d+) received signal\: (\d+)/
> >
> > I don't see how this example is near
Andy Wardley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Jun 08, 2002 at 06:51:19AM +1000, Damian Conway 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.
>
> I have no doubt that, o
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 $var := (pa
On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, Luke Palmer wrote:
> > Dave Storrs wrote:
> > Can we please have a 'reverse x' modifier that means "treat whitespace as
> > literals"? Yes, we are living in a Unicode world now and your data could
> >
> > /FATAL ERROR\:Process (\d+) received signal\: (\d+)/
>
> I don't
On Mon, 10 Jun 2002, Larry Wall wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jun 2002, Dave Storrs wrote:
>
> >
> > I assume that 'fatal.pm' is a new pragma.
>
> Already exists for Perl 5, actually.
*blush* Must have missed it. Drat, and I just finished rereading
Camel III. Apologies.
Dave
On Mon, 10 Jun 2002, Dave Storrs wrote:
>
> I assume that 'fatal.pm' is a new pragma.
Already exists for Perl 5, actually.
> 1) What (if anything) does it do, aside from turning 'fail' into a fatal
> exception when used outside a regex?
What fatal currently does is wrap built-ins that might r
I assume that 'fatal.pm' is a new pragma.
1) What (if anything) does it do, aside from turning 'fail' into a fatal
exception when used outside a regex?
2) Do you need to use it before you can (usefully) use 'fail' INSIDE a
regex? (I would assume not, but thought I'd check.)
Dave
On Fri, 7
On Sun, Jun 09, 2002 at 03:34:16PM +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
> Trey Harris wrote:
> > rule val {
> > [ # quoted
> >$b := <['"]>
> >( [ \\. | . ]*? )
> >$b
> > ] | # or not
> >(\H+)
> > }
>
> Not quite. Assigning to $b is a capture.
I'm confused. The e
Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> outlined his plans for world domination:
[...]
>
> Dammit, you fools! Do I have to think of *everything*??? Just tie him to a
> steel bench and apply the Ruby laser!
>
> I do apologize, Mr Wardley. Good evil assistants are just impossible to get
> these days.
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 . . .
Dammit, you fools! Do I have to think of *everything*??? Just tie him to a
steel bench and
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 and , between
> the equals, and before the .
No. Under :w you get \s+ between literal sequences that are potential identifiers, and
\s* between anything else.
>
>Ah, Mr Wardley, I see you have finally apprehended the magnitude of my
>nefarious plan. Five years of plotting and scheming, of gaining influence and
>gradually insinuating my dastardly code creations into the community
>consciousness: all
>about to culminate in unleashing of Perl 6 on an uns
In a message dated Sun, 9 Jun 2002, Damian Conway writes:
> Trey Harris wrote:
> > rule parsetag :w {
> > $tagname :=
> > %attrs := [ () =
> > ()
> > ]*
> >/?
> >
> > }
On second reading, it occurs to me that this wouldn't work
At 10:21 PM 6/9/2002 +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
>Richard Nuttall wrote:
> > Grammar::Python, Grammar::Ruby, Grammar::PHP ?
>
>I should imagine that the first two at least would be very likely, given that
>we wish both of those languages to run on top of Parrot.
Given that by the time Parrot is b
Damian Conway:
# 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... :-)
# >
# > G
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::
> 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 ?
R.
> 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... :-)
Ah, Mr Wardley, I see you have finally apprehended the magnitude of my
nefarious
On Sat, Jun 08, 2002 at 06:51:19AM +1000, Damian Conway 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.
I have no doubt that, once Perl 6 is available, we'll see a rash of module
Trey Harris wrote:
> I guess this is as good an opportunity as any to be sure I've got what's
> going on. So, here's a first, simple, addmitedly broken hack at a simple
> parser for xml-ish start tags and empty entities:
>
> rule lt { \< }
> rule gt { \> }
> rule identifier {
> # I don't kn
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 { /? ::: / and print $0.{comment} } /
The C? ::: />
On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, Peschko, Edward wrote:
: Let me get this straight. the grammar of Perl is reprogrammable,
: and expressed in perl6. And a script is parsed using this grammar,
: on the fly, hence portions of scripts could have different grammars
: than other parts.
Where have you been for the
On 6/7/02 5:44 PM, Damian Conway wrote:
> John Siracusa wrote:
>>> I have no doubt that, once Perl 6 is available, we'll see a rash of modules
>>> released in the Grammar:: namespace. Including Grammar::HTML and
>>> Grammar::XML.
>>
>> Why not just make Grammar::DTD, and then make Grammar::Genera
f
On Fri, Jun 07, 2002 at 05:10:49PM -0400, Trey Harris wrote:
> In a message dated Fri, 7 Jun 2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > The most serious objection to this was 'well, use modules for matching *ml" -
> > which simply points out that the current incarnation of perl6 regex doesn'
> > t han
John Siracusa wrote:
> > I have no doubt that, once Perl 6 is available, we'll see a rash of modules
> > released in the Grammar:: namespace. Including Grammar::HTML and Grammar::XML.
>
> Why not just make Grammar::DTD, and then make Grammar::Generator::FromDTD.
> Then use those to make all the
On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, John Siracusa wrote:
> On 6/7/02 4:48 PM, Luke Palmer wrote:
> > rule tag($name) {:w \< $name %opts:=[ (\S+)=(\S+) ]* \> }
> >
> > Then, you can match an img tag with:
> >
> > / /
> >
> > See, isn't that great?
>
> Don't you mean, "see, isn't that massively over-simplifie
On 6/7/02 4:51 PM, Damian Conway wrote:
> I have no doubt that, once Perl 6 is available, we'll see a rash of modules
> released in the Grammar:: namespace. Including Grammar::HTML and Grammar::XML.
Why not just make Grammar::DTD, and then make Grammar::Generator::FromDTD.
Then use those to make
On 6/7/02 4:48 PM, Luke Palmer wrote:
> rule tag($name) {:w \< $name %opts:=[ (\S+)=(\S+) ]* \> }
>
> Then, you can match an img tag with:
>
> / /
>
> See, isn't that great?
Don't you mean, "see, isn't that massively over-simplified?" ;)
(but yeah, we get the idea... :)
-John
In a message dated Fri, 7 Jun 2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> The most serious objection to this was 'well, use modules for matching *ml" -
> which simply points out that the current incarnation of perl6 regex doesn'
> t handle a very large class of matching problems very well.
I don't think th
> The most serious objection to this was 'well, use modules for matching *ml" -
> which simply points out that the current incarnation of perl6 regex doesn'
> t handle a very large class of matching problems very well.
The modules use regexes. They just spend more time on them and make them
bet
>> Can we please have a 'reverse x' modifier that means "treat whitespace as
>> literals"?
> I'll talk about that with Larry. If he were to approve it, it might possibly
> be :W.
Likewise, could we please have a modifier that makes <> literal, and aliases
<> as something else so *ml can match ea
On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, Dave Storrs wrote:
> Just to be sure I understood: you meant that (A) yes, you can use
> fail in a subroutine outside a regex, and (B) if you do, it is no
> different from die. Is that correct?
Depends on the caller's use of "use fatal". If they don't use fatal,
it re
On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, Damian Conway wrote:
> Dave Storrs wrote:
>
> > Somehow, this feels like we're trying to roll all of Prolog
> > into Perl,
>
> No. We're rolling in all of yacc/lex/RecDescent instead. ;-)
And this should reassure me _why_? *grin*
> > Just to verify, this:
> >
> >
On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, David Wheeler wrote:
> I was hoping for a magic array that would hold
> the actual *matches*, rather than pointers to their character positions.
A5 says that @$0 is that array.
Larry
On 6/7/02 11:21 AM, "David Wheeler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> claimed:
> Not to mention kinda useless. I was hoping for a magic array that would hold
> the actual *matches*, rather than pointers to their character positions.
And it appears to be C<@$0>. Duh. Sorry for the noise, folks.
David
--
Dav
On 6/7/02 10:12 AM, "Jonathan E. Paton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> claimed:
> A5, under "RFC 072: Variable-length lookbehind":
>
> "Did I mention that the magical @+ and @- arrays are gonna be real dead?
>Never could remember which one was which anyway..."
Not to mention kinda useless. I was hop
--- David Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/6/02 11:43 PM, "Damian Conway" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> claimed:
>
> >> / $2:=(.*?), \h* $1:=(.*) /
> >>
> >> Does this imply that $1, $2, etc are now read-write outside of regexen?
> >
> > No.
>
> Maybe this is a RTFM question, but does
On 6/6/02 11:43 PM, "Damian Conway" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> claimed:
>> / $2:=(.*?), \h* $1:=(.*) /
>>
>> Does this imply that $1, $2, etc are now read-write outside of regexen?
>
> No.
Maybe this is a RTFM question, but does Perl 6 (or Perl 5, for that matter)
have some magical array that
Note: My answers are non-authoritative. Don't trust me.
> Can we please have a 'reverse x' modifier that means "treat whitespace as
> literals"? Yes, we are living in a Unicode world now and your data could
> theoretically be coming in from a different character set than expected.
> But there
At 10:59 PM -0700 6/6/02, Dave Storrs wrote:
>Page 8:
>
>The u1-u3 mods all say "level 1 support". I assume this was a typo, and
>they should go (u1 => 'level 1', u2 => 'level 2', u3 => 'level 3').
Yeah. I'd avoid these if you can manage. There's not a whole lot of
reason to mandate Unicode in
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) goo
Well, A5 definitely has my head spinning. The new features seem amazingly
powerful...it almost feels like we're going to have two equally powerful,
equally complex languages living side-by-side: one of them is called
"Perl" and the other one is called "Regexes". Although they may talk to
one an
42 matches
Mail list logo
