Periodic Table of the Operators

2004-05-26 Thread Mark Lentczner
/mark/blog/code/PeriodicTable.html - Mark Mark Lentczner markl (at) glyphic (dot) com

Re: Periodic Table of the Operators

2004-05-26 Thread Mark Lentczner
LOL! That's fantastic! We _must_ put it on Thank you. You are welcome to put it on I can't help myself but to correct it, though :-) Please do. It was clear that many discussions happened after the TAKE 6 list, my primary reference. I will be happy to update it in

Re: Periodic Table of the Operators

2004-05-28 Thread Mark Lentczner
? - Mark Mark Lentczner [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Predicting Operators

2004-05-28 Thread Mark Lentczner
. It will be corrected in the next version of the chart. - Mark Mark Lentczner [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Periodic Table of the Operators

2004-05-28 Thread Mark Lentczner
Not to beat a dead horse, but I've updated the Periodic table with almost all the changes that people here sent me, as well as reading a few more threads and references. This will be the last update for some time. I'll be uploading a version to cafepress so people can get posters,

Re: Precedence table update

2004-08-14 Thread Mark Lentczner
- Mark hope the tallow candle lasts 'till dawn Lentczner Mark Lentczner [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Precedence table update

2004-08-15 Thread Mark Lentczner
, the statement modifiers are in the same boat. Does these things act as operators or are then in the realm of the recursive descent grammar? - Mark Mark Lentczner [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Operator sleuthing...

2009-01-15 Thread Mark Lentczner
) and be :bool. But %chaining is the only set of operators that has :bool... ?? Is this just belt and suspenders checking, or can that meta op apply to more? Mark Lentczner

spelunking in the meta-ops in

2009-01-18 Thread Mark Lentczner
I was looking through at the parsing of metaops. I was exploring to see if the legal metaops for a given operator could be notated on the operator chart. What I found was some oddness... op= (infix_postfix_meta_operator:sym=) The internal op

small patch to

2009-01-23 Thread Mark Lentczner
This fixes a typo and enables X+X to be an operator... - MtnViewMark Index: === --- (revision 25009) +++ (working copy) @@ -1148,7 +1148,7 @@ X [ | infix X |

three little operator questions

2009-01-25 Thread Mark Lentczner
I've got three small operator questions before the new table of the operators is done: 1) Is Cmod no longer an operator? It is still listed in S03, but doesn't parse it. 2) Is C\ no longer an operator? S03 lists it as a symbolic unary, but doesn't parse it that way. 3)

Re: r25060 - docs/Perl6/Spec src/perl6

2009-01-27 Thread Mark Lentczner
On Jan 27, 2009, at 12:29 PM, Jon Lang wrote: So $a -= $b is equivalent to $b = $a, not -($a = $b). OK. I'd suggest choosing a better character for the meta-operator (one that conveys the meaning of reversal of order rather than opposite value); but I don't think that there is one. There

Re: slaughter of the LTM metatokens

2009-01-29 Thread Mark Lentczner
[STD, S03] slaughter of the LTM metatokens This cleans up the metaop scene quite a bit. Bravo! I went through with a fine tooth comb again, to extract what I'd say about which operators were allowed to be meta'd by each given metaop: (The notation foo -- bar means, takes an

Normalization of metaops

2009-01-31 Thread Mark Lentczner
The concept of which metaops can apply to which other ops is looking pretty clear. The goal, as I understand it from Larry, is that while in general, metaops should be allowed, we want to disallow them where they either make no sense, or are very unlikely to be what the programmer thought

Periodic Table of the Operators, version 3

2009-02-15 Thread Mark Lentczner
Friends - Just a note to let you know that the third version of the Periodic Table of the Operators is complete: Thanks again to all those who helped me dive deep into perl6. - MtnViewMark Mark Lentczner

Re: On Junctions

2009-03-29 Thread Mark Lentczner
!' }; - MtnViewMark Mark Lentczner