markl (at) glyphic (dot) com
LOL! That's fantastic! We _must_ put it on dev.perl.org.
Thank you. You are welcome to put it on dev.perl.org.
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
. It will be corrected in the next version of the
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,
- Mark hope the tallow candle lasts 'till dawn 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?
) 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?
I was looking through STD.pm 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...
The internal op
This fixes a typo and enables X+X to be an operator...
--- STD.pm (revision 25009)
+++ STD.pm (working copy)
@@ -1148,7 +1148,7 @@
| infix X
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
STD.pm doesn't parse it.
2) Is C\ no longer an operator? S03 lists it as a symbolic unary,
but STD.pm doesn't parse it that way.
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.
[STD, S03] slaughter of the LTM metatokens
This cleans up the metaop scene quite a bit. Bravo!
I went through STD.pm with a fine tooth comb again, to extract what
I'd say about which operators were allowed to be meta'd by each given
(The notation foo -- bar means, takes an
The concept of which metaops can apply to which other ops is looking
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
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.
Mail list logo