Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
Of course, there are other implicit parameters that are given
to a rule -- the target string to be matched and an initial
starting position. But I think some of those details are still
being worked out.
Wasn't it said that rules have the current match object/state
On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 09:14:33AM +0200, TSa (Thomas Sandlaß) wrote:
Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
Of course, there are other implicit parameters that are given
to a rule -- the target string to be matched and an initial
starting position. But I think some of those details are still
being
Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
Alas, it doesn't seem to be quite that straightforward. Or maybe
it is, and I'm just not seeing it yet. So, I'll just think out
loud here for a bit...
I like it if that is happening on the list instead of off-list.
Thanks.
I think the state object ought to have
On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 09:19:22PM +0200, TSa (Thomas Sandlaß) wrote:
I think the state object ought to have some sort of base type --
is it Grammar? Rule? If we say it's a Rule, then we're
effectively saying that applying a Rule to a target results
in a Rule object containing the state
Further woes, arguments, questions:
In regards to @array, A5 says A leading @ matches like a bare array...
but this is an over-generalization. A leading '@' merely indicates the
rule is found in an array. @array[3] would be the same as
$fourth_element_of_array, assuming those two values are
On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 12:52:36AM -0400, Jeff 'japhy' Pinyan wrote:
Further woes, arguments, questions:
In regards to @array, A5 says A leading @ matches like a bare array...
but this is an over-generalization. A leading '@' merely indicates the
rule is found in an array. @array[3]
On Sun, May 29, 2005 at 12:52:25PM -0400, Jeff 'japhy' Pinyan wrote:
I'm curious if commit and cut capture anything. They don't start
with '?', so following the guidelines, it would appear they capture, but
that doesn't make sense. Should they be written as ?commit and ?cut,
or is the
On Thu, May 26, 2005 at 11:19:42AM -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
: Do we still have the rule syntax, or was that abandoned in
: favor of ?rule ? (I know there are still some remnants of ...
: in S05 and A05, but I'm not sure they're intentional.)
It's gone, though we're reserving it for
On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 01:20:57PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
On Thu, May 26, 2005 at 11:19:42AM -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
: Do we still have the rule syntax, or was that abandoned in
: favor of ?rule ? (I know there are still some remnants of ...
: in S05 and A05, but I'm not sure
On Thu, May 26, 2005 at 11:19:42AM -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
$rule N indirect rule
::$rulename N indirect symbolic rule
@rulesN like '@rules'
%rulesN like '%rules'
{ code } N code produces a
On May 26, Patrick R. Michaud said:
commit N backtracking fails completely
cut N remove what matched up to this point from the
string
after P N we must be after the pattern P
!after PN we must NOT be after the pattern P
before P
On Sat, May 28, 2005 at 12:58:01AM -0400, Jeff 'japhy' Pinyan wrote:
[ set notation for character classes ]
What say you?
Off the top of my head I think using and | within character classes
will cause confusion.
/ (~(X Y) | Z | Q R) M | N /
So much for the visual pill of xxx
I'm having a hard time coming up eith examples where I need anything otehr than
union and difference for character classes. Most of the predefined character
classes are disjoint, so intersection is almost useless. So for now let's just
stick with + and - and simple sets with not parens,
In regards to http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl6.language/21120
which discusses character class syntax in Perl 6, I have some comments to
make.
First, I've been very interested in seeing proper set notation for char
classes in Perl 5. I was pretty vocal about it during TPC in 2002, I
On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 08:25:03PM -0400, Jeff 'japhy' Pinyan wrote:
I have looked through the latest
revisions of Apo05 and Syn05 (from Dec 2004) and come up with the
following list:
http://japhy.perlmonk.org/perl6/rules.txt
I'll review the list below, but it's also worthwhile to read
Rather than answer each message in this thread individually, I'll
try to aggregate them here. Disclaimer: These are just my
interpretations of how rules are defined; I'm not the one who
decides how they *should* be defined.
On Wed, May 25, 2005 at 10:55:59AM -0400, Jeff 'japhy' Pinyan wrote:
On Wed, May 25, 2005 at 08:28:11AM -0700, Mark A. Biggar wrote:
Jeff 'japhy' Pinyan wrote:
Yeah, that was going to be my next step, except that the unknowing
person might make a sub-rule of their own called, say, Zs, and then
which would take precedence? Perhaps prop:X is a good way of
On May 26, Patrick R. Michaud said:
On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 08:25:03PM -0400, Jeff 'japhy' Pinyan wrote:
I have looked through the latest
revisions of Apo05 and Syn05 (from Dec 2004) and come up with the
following list:
http://japhy.perlmonk.org/perl6/rules.txt
I'll review the list below,
On Thu, May 26, 2005 at 07:05:41PM -0400, Jeff 'japhy' Pinyan wrote:
Here the leading tokens are actually $, ::$, @, %, {, ,
and (, and I suspect we have ?$, ?::$, ?@, and !$, !::$,
!@, etc. counterparts.
Per your second message, [EMAIL PROTECTED] would mean !before @rules,
right?
I think
Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 11:24:50PM -0400, Jeff 'japhy' Pinyan wrote:
I wish !prop X was allowed. I don't see why !... has to be confined
to zero-width assertions.
I don't either actually. One thing that occurred to me while responding
to your original email was
On May 25, Jonathan Scott Duff said:
On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 11:24:50PM -0400, Jeff 'japhy' Pinyan wrote:
I wish !prop X was allowed. I don't see why !... has to be confined
to zero-width assertions.
I don't either actually. One thing that occurred to me while responding
to your original
On May 25, Mark A. Biggar said:
Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 11:24:50PM -0400, Jeff 'japhy' Pinyan wrote:
I wish !prop X was allowed. I don't see why !... has to be confined to
zero-width assertions.
I don't either actually. One thing that occurred to me while
Jeff 'japhy' Pinyan wrote:
On May 25, Mark A. Biggar said:
Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 11:24:50PM -0400, Jeff 'japhy' Pinyan wrote:
I wish !prop X was allowed. I don't see why !... has to be
confined to zero-width assertions.
I don't either actually. One thing
I'm working on a Perl 5 module that will allow for the parsing of a Perl 6
rule into a tree structure -- specifically, I'm subclassing/extending
Regexp::Parser into Perl6::Rule::Parser. This module is designed ONLY to
PARSE the contents of a rule; it is not concerned with the implementation
On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 08:25:03PM -0400, Jeff 'japhy' Pinyan wrote:
http://japhy.perlmonk.org/perl6/rules.txt
That looks completish to me. (At least I didn't think, hey! where's
such and such?)
One thing that I noticed and had to look up was
-prop X
though. Because ...
The
On May 24, Jonathan Scott Duff said:
On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 08:25:03PM -0400, Jeff 'japhy' Pinyan wrote:
http://japhy.perlmonk.org/perl6/rules.txt
That looks completish to me. (At least I didn't think, hey! where's
such and such?)
Oh, frabjous day!
One thing that I noticed and had to
26 matches
Mail list logo
