Lexing requires execution (was Re: Will _anything_ be able to truly parse and understand perl?)

2004-11-26 Thread Randal L. Schwartz
Luke == Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Luke But you don't really need to parse to syntax highlight, either. You Luke just need to tokenize. Unfortunately, to tokenize, you also have to know the state of the parse. As long as / is both divide and begin regex, you're toasted. Please see

Re: Lexing requires execution (was Re: Will _anything_ be able to truly parse and understand perl?)

2004-11-26 Thread Matthew Walton
Randal L. Schwartz wrote: Luke == Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Luke But you don't really need to parse to syntax highlight, either. You Luke just need to tokenize. Unfortunately, to tokenize, you also have to know the state of the parse. As long as / is both divide and begin regex,

Re: Lexing requires execution (was Re: Will _anything_ be able to truly parse and understand perl?)

2004-11-26 Thread Randal L. Schwartz
Matthew == Matthew Walton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Matthew So you're saying that in Perl 6 it will be entirely impossible to Matthew determine if / appears as the division operator or as the beginning of Matthew a regex from a purely syntactic examination of the source code? Yes. Matthew I'm

Re: Lexing requires execution (was Re: Will _anything_ be able to truly parse and understand perl?)

2004-11-26 Thread Matthew Walton
Randal L. Schwartz wrote: Matthew == Matthew Walton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Matthew So you're saying that in Perl 6 it will be entirely impossible to Matthew determine if / appears as the division operator or as the beginning of Matthew a regex from a purely syntactic examination of the source

Re: Lexing requires execution (was Re: Will _anything_ be able to truly parse and understand perl?)

2004-11-26 Thread Randal L. Schwartz
Matthew == Matthew Walton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Matthew Perl 6 has formal parameters for subs, methods etc. I don't see any Matthew mention of Perl 5-style prototypes in S6, and I honestly can't see how Matthew they could possibly fit with formal parameters. Hopefully Larry or Matthew

Re: Lexing requires execution (was Re: Will _anything_ be able to truly parse and understand perl?)

2004-11-26 Thread Matthew Walton
Randal L. Schwartz wrote: Matthew == Matthew Walton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Matthew Perl 6 has formal parameters for subs, methods etc. I don't see any Matthew mention of Perl 5-style prototypes in S6, and I honestly can't see how Matthew they could possibly fit with formal parameters.

Re: Lexing requires execution (was Re: Will _anything_ be able to truly parse and understand perl?)

2004-11-26 Thread James Mastros
Randal L. Schwartz wrote: All the handwaving in the world won't fix this. As long as we have dual-natured characters like /, and user-defined prototypes, Perl cannot be lexed without also parsing, and therefore without also running BEGIN blocks. And user-defined prototypes that change when the

Re: Lexing requires execution (was Re: Will _anything_ be able to truly parse and understand perl?)

2004-11-26 Thread Juerd
James Mastros skribis 2004-11-26 14:36 (+0100): And user-defined prototypes that change when the argument list of a function ends, that is. If we forced the argument list for all functions to have parens (including empty parens for argument less functions), then we'd be OK, I'm fairly