precendence, not List_prefix.
?? Did these move?
The ! metaop in STD requires that the op be either chaining or have an
associativity (any) 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
http://www.ozonehouse.com/mark/
m...@glyphic.com
Here's some more sleuthing and differences between STD.pm and Synopsis
3:
Methodcall precedence operators in STD.pm seem to include this set:
.meth - single call
.?meth - 0 or 1 call
.+meth - 1 or more call
.*meth - 0 or more call
.=meth - mutating
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...
op= (infix_postfix_meta_operator:sym<=>)
The internal op
This fixes a typo and enables X>>+< X
| X
-| X
+| X
]
= $; }>
I've got three small operator questions before the new table of the
operators is done:
1) Is C no longer an operator? It is still listed in S03, but
STD.pm doesn't parse it.
2) Is C<\> no longer an operator? S03 lists it as a symbolic unary,
but STD.pm doesn't parse it that way.
3) Sh
On Jan 27, 2009, at 12:29 PM, Jon Lang wrote:
So "$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
metaop:
(The notation "foo --> bar" means, takes an ope
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
Friends -
Just a note to let you know that the third version of the Periodic
Table of the Operators is complete:
http://www.ozonehouse.com/mark/periodic/
Thanks again to all those who helped me dive deep into perl6.
- MtnViewMark
Mark Lentczner
http://www.ozonehouse.com
1|11, 3, 1|11;
$pv = suchthat([+] @p, {$_ <= 21})
$dv = suchthat([+] @d, {$_ <= 21})
if $pv and (!$dv or $pv > $dv) { say 'p wins!' };
- MtnViewMark
Mark Lentczner
http://www.ozonehouse.com/mark/
m...@glyphic.com
/mark/blog/code/PeriodicTable.html
- Mark
Mark Lentczner
http://www.ozonehouse.com/mark/
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
I arrived at "Termplars".
Then "Bazaars" just came naturally. You weren't expecting any logic to
this, were you?
- Mark
Mark Lentczner
http://www.ozonehouse.com/mark/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
that purpose. It will be corrected in the next version of the
chart.
- Mark
Mark Lentczner
http://www.ozonehouse.com/mark/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
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, tee-shir
ators
- Mark "hope the tallow candle lasts 'till dawn" Lentczner
Mark Lentczner
http://www.ozonehouse.com/mark/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
t as an operator? Similarly, 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
http://www.ozonehouse.com/mark/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
17 matches
Mail list logo
