On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 11:36:43AM -0500, Rod Adams wrote:
Output would be a step by step graph of the internal logic used to match
/ not match the string. I'd break the RE up into the same pieces the
Engine does, then show how that subrule matched char a, then char b, but
failed to match
I'm reviewing the updated S05 (2 Dec 2004) and ran across this
in the Hypothetical Variables section:
# Pairs of repeated captures can be bound to hashes:
/ %options := [ (ident) = (\N+) ]* /
Actually, I see three captures there, so should this instead read...?
/ %options
On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 08:19:17AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
And people would have to get used to seeing ? as non-capturing assertions:
?before ...
?after ...
?ws
?sp
?null
This has a rather Ruby-esque I am a boolean feeling to it. I think
I like it. It's pretty easy
On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 10:52:54AM +, Matthew Walton wrote:
Of course, it then begs the question about
word ws $foo ws number
if we're thinking of parallels with qw//-like constructs, which I
certainly am. I'm not quite sure what that would do, as it collides
slightly with the
On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 08:24:20PM -0800, Ashley Winters wrote:
I was working on the (possibly misguided) assumption that there's a
cost to capturing, and that perhaps agressive capturing isn't worth
having on in a one-liner. Some deep part of my mind remembers $`
being bad, I think. If
On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 01:21:00PM +0100, Juerd wrote:
Nicholas Clark skribis 2005-02-07 12:10 (+):
Will the relative precedence of grouping versus anchors for beginning and
end of line remain the same in Perl6 rules?
There currently is no such thing as precedence in regexes. Changing
On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 10:42:34AM +, Thomas Yandell wrote:
Is the following comment correct?
my $x = any(2,3,4,5) and any(4,5,6,7); # $x now contains any(4,5)
Short answer: I don't think so.
Long answer: I tend to get very lost when dealing with junctions, so
I can be completely
On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 12:02:01PM -0600, Rod Adams wrote:
Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
Even if you fixed the =/and precedence with parens, to read
my $x = (any(2,3,4,5) and any(4,5,6,7));
then I think the result is still that $x contains any(4,5,6,7).
Funny. I thought $x would
On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 12:02:01PM -0600, Rod Adams wrote:
[...]
If this is the case, then this entire discussion collapses into how to
best convert arrays into junctions and junctions into arrays. Perl's
existing abilities to edit arrays should be more than sufficient for
editing
On Sat, Feb 12, 2005 at 04:44:04PM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
$x = $Value | 'Default';
instead of :
$x = $Value || 'Default';
Hmm, this is an interesting point. I'll let others chime in here,
as I don't have a good answer (nor am I at all authoritative
On Sat, Feb 12, 2005 at 01:02:45PM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 02:12:51PM -0600, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
I briefly grepped through the apocalypses/synopses and couldn't
find the answer -- how do I tell a scalar context to expect a
junction of values? In particular
On Sat, Feb 12, 2005 at 12:09:37PM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
[...]
- one() checks its operands for duplicates; if found, it collapses
itself into an empty one() junction, thus failing all tests.
Is this somewhat saner? :-)
Depends on when it's checking its operands for duplicates,
On Sun, Feb 13, 2005 at 01:01:15AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
On Sat, Feb 12, 2005 at 10:55:05AM -0600, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
On Sat, Feb 12, 2005 at 12:09:37PM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
[...]
- one() checks its operands for duplicates; if found, it collapses
itself
On Sat, Feb 12, 2005 at 12:41:19AM -0600, Rod Adams wrote:
I've given here. For example, a junction can have a value like:
$x = ($a $b) ^ ($c $d)
which is true only if $a and $b are true or $c and $d are true but not
both.
That's why I allowed for virtual sets, defined by a closure.
On Sat, Feb 12, 2005 at 01:18:53PM -0600, Rod Adams wrote:
My issue is less that lists and sets are radically different. It is much
more a matter of Junctions and Scalars are radically different. Getting
me to accept that a Scalar holds several different values at once is a
hard sell.
Woops! I just realized I factored something wrongly...!?
On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 01:22:51PM -0600, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
# return true if $x is a factor of $y
sub is_factor (Scalar $x, Scalar $y) { $y % $x == 0 }
[...]
# a (somewhat inefficient?) is_prime test for $bar
On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 12:54:39AM -0600, Rod Adams wrote:
Damian writes:
Junctions have an associated boolean predicate that's preserved across
operations on the junction. Junctions also implicitly distribute
across operations, and rejunctify the results.
My brain is having trouble fully
On Sat, Feb 12, 2005 at 03:28:15AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 09:42:06AM +, Thomas Yandell wrote:
Is there another operator that takes the intersection of two
junctions, such that any(2,3,4,5) *some op* any(4,5,6,7) would result
in any(4,5)?
Yes. In Pugs
On Sat, Feb 12, 2005 at 03:54:57PM -0600, Rod Adams wrote:
But, to extract those alternative values from an object, you do
something special to it, like call a method. Whenever you evaluate the
object as a scalar, you get a single value back. Quite probably a
reference to something much
On Sat, Feb 12, 2005 at 05:24:04PM -0600, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
Because of this, I'd suggest that autothreading of user-defined routines
not be the default, but rather enabled via a pragma of some sort (or, of
course, via an autothreaded trait). For the built-in routines this
isn't a
On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 03:07:53PM -0600, Rod Adams wrote:
I see it this way:
When perl sees a function call, and one of the arguments is a junction,
there are three basic options:
1) If the junction is wrapped up in some larger container, like a slurpy
list, pass it on as is.
2) If the
On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 05:49:44PM -0600, Rod Adams wrote:
As you've written things above, Cfun is autothreaded (your option #3),
and we'll see two Cwarn output lines if $DEBUG is set.
The case of Damian's response in a prior message:
[...]
Could easily be achieved with a single layer of
On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 12:17:35PM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
Rod Adams wrote:
On a slightly different topic, do the following equivalences work:
[...]
none($a, $a) == undef
True.
Scott already caught (and Damian acknowledged) this one, it's false
if $a == undef.
none($a,$a,$b) ==
On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 07:20:53PM -0600, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
OTOH, what happens with...?
sub nofun($x is rw) {
$x += 2;
}
$y = 3 | 4;
nofun($y);
That's either an error (Can't modify constant) or the same as 5|6
On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 01:13:53PM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
Larry wrote:
0 $x 10
after all--the problem with rewriting that as
0 $x and $x 10
is that it should only work as long as the two values of $x remain
entangled so that the always refer to the same abstract value.
On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 02:53:15PM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
none(none($a,$b),none($c,$d)) == none($a,$b,$c,$d)
True.
H...
- none(none($a,$b) == none($a,$b,$c,$d),
none($c,$d) == none($a,$b,$c,$d))
RHS distributes first. So
On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 12:14:10AM -0600, Rod Adams wrote:
So in terms of frequency of use in the English Language, I'd rank things
in the following order:
1) Scalars
2) Sets
3) Arrays
4) Hashes
Perhaps. However, it's fairly easy to use an Array or Hash to represent
a Set, so perhaps it's
On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 01:06:22PM +, Nigel Sandever wrote:
Any chance that you could provide one or two simple but realistic examples of
using Junctions and their operators?
I'll give it a shot, but keep in mind that I'm somewhat new to this
also. :-)
First, junctions are an easy way
On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 06:04:37PM +, Nigel Sandever wrote:
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 09:18:42 -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Patrick R. Michaud)
wrote:
And for fun, try writing the equivalent of
if $x == one($a, $b, $c, $d) { ... }
without a junction. (Okay, one can cheat with Cgrep
On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 11:03:09PM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 02:29:36PM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
: Just a quick question. The prettyprinter of Pugs (the thing that
: handles the .perl method) currently prints out boolean true and
: false as #t and #f, which is
On Sat, Feb 19, 2005 at 09:10:05PM +0100, Juerd wrote:
Is ='s LHS still automatically quoted? What are the rules?
S02 says that = still autoquotes any bare identifier to its immediate
left, even keywords and macros.
Pm
On Sat, Feb 19, 2005 at 02:40:00PM -0600, Rod Adams wrote:
I addressed earlier concept of how does perl know when there are side
effects, particularly with the execution path can weave to parts written
in pure-parrot. Patrick responded by implying
that there was no such side effect
On Sat, Feb 19, 2005 at 01:43:57PM -0800, Ashley Winters wrote:
Instead of primary sigils, what about secondary sigils on an array to
mark it as an unordered set?
@|foo = any
@foo = all
@^foo = one # can arrays be curried arguments? hmm
@!foo = none
After all, why should scalars get
On Sun, Feb 20, 2005 at 10:46:15PM +0100, Eirik Berg Hanssen wrote:
Eirik Berg Hanssen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Rod Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
$re1 = /^ -[x]* x -[x]* $/; # match a string with exactly one 'x'
$re2 = /^ -[y]* y -[y]* $/; # ditto 'y'
$re3 = /^ -[z]* z -[z]*
On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 12:54:20AM -0500, Uri Guttman wrote:
RA == Rod Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
RA Uri Guttman wrote:
that fixes Stéphane's problem with my yall proposal. and yall solves the
unary my problem. :)
RA Stop misusing y'all before this Texan has to hurt
On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 09:32:28PM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 11:06:17PM -0600, Rod Adams wrote:
: Since the line between rules and subs is already blurring significantly,
: I want to blur it a little more. I want to write rules which can take
: parameters.
No
On Sat, Mar 05, 2005 at 11:22:23AM -0500, Garrett Rooney wrote:
It looks like the current pugs array interpolation doesn't quite match
the description in S02.
[...]
This a (hopefully friendly) note regarding cross posting between
perl6-compiler (p6c) and perl6-language (p6l). We're still
On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 06:03:20PM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
: One thing I've already done is make a list of Perl 5 functions I cannot
: address until some future Apocalypse/Synopsis is generated on the topic.
: By far the bulk of this list falls on S16. Partly because IPC is a mess,
: and
On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 12:05:37PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
Bitshift, which one is it?
+
or
+
I believe only + is possible, because + has to be +«, but S03 is
still inconsistent, and + comes up everywhere, including Brent's
perl6op.txt.
Can there please be a definitive answer, and
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005, Larry Wall wrote:
I think it's time to break out
the colon again and use something like:
infix:+:(Complex, Complex);
or
foo:(Str,Int)
for ordinary functions. If it gets really popular people might
even start writing:
sub foo :(Str,Int) {...}
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 05:21:05PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
Given that we're trying to get rid of special
exceptions, and - in character classes is weird, and we already
use .. for ranges everywhere else, and nobody is going to put a
repeated character into a character class, I'm wondering if
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 02:58:44PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
Am I the only one who thinks [a-z] is ugly and hard to type because of
the nested brackets? The same goes for {...}. The latter can't easily
be fixed, I think, but the former perhaps can.
Part of the thinking behind this is that the [...]
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 01:01:58PM -, Rafael Garcia-Suarez wrote:
Aaron Sherman wrote in perl.perl6.language :
A silly question: is there a canonical character set from which we
extract these ranges? Are we hard-coding Unicode here, or is there some
way for the user to specify the
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 09:17:13AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 06:04:32PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
: No, Ucfirst it can't be, I think. And ALLCAPS is ugly. @ is taken (and
: ugly). Suggestions?
Maybe we could define an ok operator that suppresses only the
*first* warning
On Sun, Apr 17, 2005 at 07:29:33AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
On Sun, Apr 17, 2005 at 08:56:46PM +1000, Brad Bowman wrote:
:
: Hi all,
:
: S03 gives infix + a higher precedence than junctive
: operators in the listed table, but that seems to contradict
: the examples under Junctive
On Sun, Apr 17, 2005 at 02:52:27PM +0200, Steven Philip Schubiger wrote:
A spelling mistake and a word, that supposedly has been forgotten.
Steven
Applied, thanks!
Pm
--- apo/A06.pod Sun Apr 17 14:34:16 2005
+++ apo/A06.pod Sun Apr 17 14:42:37 2005
@@
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 06:22:13PM +0200, Thomas Sandlaß wrote:
I've edited the above syntax into S06 and A06. The two patches
are attached but I don't know if you are the right one to sent
them to. Whom should I sent such patches? I just saw you applying
other patches as well.
Applied,
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 12:00:22PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: Although admittedly, I only encountered this when playing with a
: non-readonly undef ;) (This is something I can recommend to anyone:
: redefining true, false and undef leads to very spectacular code, where
: anything's possible,
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 08:13:20PM +0200, Steven Philip Schubiger wrote:
On 20 Apr, Luke Palmer wrote:
: Steven Philip Schubiger writes:
: In
: macro circumfix:(*...*) () is parsed(/.*?/ { }
:
: is the second enclosing part of the parsed parentheses omitted
: by intention? If not, I'd
On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 08:46:53AM -0400, Joshua Gatcomb wrote:
The problem is that in the regex version I use capturing parens to
identify the character matched. For the purposes of the problem I
don't need to rely on the first character matched I just need to know
1.
Without doing a lot
On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 06:29:46PM +0200, Thomas Sandlaß wrote:
Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
my $matches = any( @x_chars ) eq any( @y_chars );
my $match = $matches.pick;
Perhaps the easiest way to explain the difficulty here is to note that
executing a relational op (i.e. returning a boolean
On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 10:30:35AM -0600, Paul Seamons wrote:
Minor note.
Would you want this:
sub infix:myeq(Str $a, Str $b) { return ($a eq $b) ? $a : ''; }
to be [corrected]:
sub infix:myeq(Str $a, Str $b)
{ return ($a eq $b) ?? $a but bool::true :: ''; }
Perhaps, but I
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 02:22:43PM -0400, John Macdonald wrote:
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 10:43:22AM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 10:07, Aaron Sherman wrote:
A coroutine is just a functional unit that can be re-started after a
previous return, so I would expect that in
On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 06:24:00PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
To try and make it easier to pick (ASCII) operators, a simple table of
what's given away and what's available. Please let me know if there are
any mistakes.
If anyone knows how to fill in the ??? parts, be my guest!
[...]
\w+
Here's some more commentary to draft zero of the capturing semantics
(thanks, Damian!), based partially on PGE's current implementation.
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 10:51:53PM +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
[...]
=head2 Nested subpattern captures
[...]
There may also be shortcuts for accessing
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 09:47:14AM -0600, Paul Seamons wrote:
=item *
Quantifiers (except C? and C??) cause a matched subrule or subpattern to
return an array of CMatch objects, instead of just a single object.
What is the effect of the quantifiers C**{0,1} and C**{0,1}? ? Will they
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 11:02:58AM -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 09:47:14AM -0600, Paul Seamons wrote:
=item *
Quantifiers (except C? and C??) cause a matched subrule or subpattern
to
return an array of CMatch objects, instead of just a single object
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 09:14:02AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: m/ alt: tea (don't) (ray) (me) (for) (solar tea), (d'oh!)
: | alt: BEM (every) (green) (BEM) (devours) (faces)
: /;
This seems like a rather ugly syntax for what is essentially a label,
or a null rule. I
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 11:34:10AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 10:33:33AM -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
: After thinking on this a bit, I'm hoping we don't do this -- at least not
: initially. I'm not sure there's a lot of advantage of C $1.1 over
: C $1[0
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 08:43:39PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can I say $*1, $*2, etc, to get perl5 flattened peren counting captures?
We need something like that to make perl5-perl6 translation easier;
otherwise we'd have to parse perl5 RE instead of just slapping on a :p5.
Unless :p5
On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 12:06:57AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 08:30:42AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 05:48:59PM +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
: But that's only the opinion of one(@Larry), not of $Larry.
Let's go 0-based and make $0 =:= $/[0] so
On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 06:37:53PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
Larry Wall skribis 2005-05-11 8:30 (-0700):
It's already the case that p5-to-p6 is going to have a *wonderful*
time translating $7 to $1[2][0]...
Or maybe it just has to change ( to $1 := (, the second ( to $2
:= (, etc.
More likely
I now have a basic implementation for enumerated character classes in
the grammar engine (i.e., [xyz], -[xyz], [x..z], and -[x..z]).
I didn't see it specified anywhere, but are the \d, \D, \s, \S, etc.
metacharacters still supposed to work inside of a enumerated character
class, as they do in
I have a couple of questions regarding C :: in perl 6 rules.
First, a question of verification -- in
$rule = rx :w / plane :: (\d+) | train :: (\w+) | auto :: (\S+) / ;
travel by plane jet train tgv today ~~ $rule
I think the match should fail outright, as opposed to matching train
On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 12:53:46PM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
My take, based on S05:
In other words, it acts as though one had written
$rule = rx :w / plane ::: (\d+) | train ::: (\w+) | auto ::: (\S+) / ;
and not
$rule = rx :w /[ plane :: (\d+) | train :: (\w+) |
On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 12:33:59PM -0500, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
/[:w\bfoo bar]/# not exactly the same as above
No, I think that's exactly the same.
What does \b mean again? I assume it's no longer backspace?
For as long as I can remember \b has meant word boundary in
$rule = rx :w / plane ::: (\d+) | train ::: (\w+) | auto ::: (\S+) / ;
$rule = rx :w /[ plane :: (\d+) | train :: (\w+) | auto :: (\S+) ]/ ;
On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 02:29:24PM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
On Thu, 2005-05-12 at 13:44, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 12
On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 03:23:20AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
Is it really intended that we get into habit of writing this?
if 'localhost:80' ~~ /^(.+)\:(\d+)$/ {
my $socket = connect(~$0, +$1);
}
It looks... weird. :)
And it would have to be
if 'localhost:80' ~~
On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 05:15:55PM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
On Thu, 2005-05-12 at 15:41, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
False. In the first case the group is the whole rule. In the second
case the group would not include the (implied) '.*?' at the start of
the rule.
This was a very
On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 08:56:39PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 09:33:37AM -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
: Also, A05 proposes incorrect alternatives to the above
:
: /[:w[]foo bar]/# null pattern illegal, use null
: /[:w()foo bar]/# null capture
On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 08:10:42PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 02:55:36PM -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
: On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 03:23:20AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
: Is it really intended that we get into habit of writing this?
:
: if 'localhost:80
On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 03:36:50PM +, Luke Palmer wrote:
I'm basically saying that you should treat your:
$str ~~ /abc :: def | ghi :: jkl | mn :: op/;
As:
$rule = rx/abc :: def | ghi :: jkl | mn :: op/;
$str ~~ /^ .*? $rule/;
Which means that you fail the rule, your .*?
On Sat, May 14, 2005 at 04:26:44AM +, Luke Palmer wrote:
On 5/14/05, Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I want ::: to break out of *that* dynamic scope (or the equivalent
matchrighthere scope), but not ::.
I'm not sure that's such a good idea. When you say:
rule foo() { a* :::
On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 01:07:20PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 11:54:47AM -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
: $r1 = rx / abc :: def | ghi :: jkl | mn :: op /;
: $r2 = rx / abc ::: def | ghi ::: jkl | mn ::: op /;
: $r3 = rx / [ abc :: def | ghi :: jkl | mn :: op
On Fri, May 20, 2005 at 05:15:24PM -0400, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
On Fri, 20 May 2005, Yuval Kogman wrote:
then it is not finalized into a real value. Here's how the range
operator would be implemented:
sub infix:.. ($from, $to where { $to $from }){ reverse $to ..
$from }
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 Thu, May 26, 2005 at 11:03:15AM -0600, John Williams wrote:
I proposed the following:
# Fifteens
$score += 2 * all( 15 == [EMAIL PROTECTED] any( 0 .. 4 ) } );
* Is this syntax legal?
I think so.
* Does it do what I want it to do?
Definitely not.
First, apologies in
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
On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 09:23:11AM -0400, Nathan Gray wrote:
As I am interested in human-readable dates and times, and having found
no conclusive discussion on time formatting, I make my recommendation
for a syntax (to start discussion, and allow for date formatting to be
implemented in pugs):
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 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
On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 11:58:12PM -0400, Dino Morelli wrote:
Thank you for the summary, Matt
I have a correction, though:
subrules tests
Dino Morelli provided a patch adding tests for subrules to PGE. Warnock
applies.
http://xrl.us/f955
This and my other two patches
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 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
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
On Sun, Jun 05, 2005 at 05:11:55PM +0200, BÁRTHÁZI András wrote:
Thanks, it helped me!
More questions. ;) It seems to me, that the following constructs not
yet(?) implemented in Pugs. Is it true?
I'll note briefly here that questions regarding implementation (in Perl 6
or Pugs) generally
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 12:51:15PM -0400, Joshua Gatcomb wrote:
I know that decisions are subject to change but having the current
state of decisions in a single location (Synopses) would be a great
benefit to all. I am a firm believer in not complaining unless you
have an idea about how to
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 02:36:52PM -0400, Joshua Gatcomb wrote:
Ok, are there any guidelines for what should and should not be put
forward as a patch. I can see 3 key areas of concern:
1. Framework for unwritten Synopses (so we know what goes where)
2. Heading placeholders for written
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 02:22:59PM -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 02:36:52PM -0400, Joshua Gatcomb wrote:
Ok, are there any guidelines for what should and should not be put
forward as a patch.
[...]
For anything that doesn't come from @Larry or $Larry, I think we
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 02:22:59PM -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 02:36:52PM -0400, Joshua Gatcomb wrote:
I have included a sample framework for chapter 17. Theoretically,
someone could then go search the archives for decision points in any
of those headings
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 03:54:45PM +0200, BÁRTHÁZI András wrote:
I would have some general Perl6 programming questions. Where should I ask
them? It's not about language design, not about compiling/compilers and
even not related to the internals.
As more and more people will start hacking
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 10:04:34AM -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
Perhaps what we need is updated descriptions of the various mailing
lists on perl.org (http://dev.perl.org/perl6/lists/)? I'll draft
some proposed changes to that page.
And here they are... this is just a draft -- feel
Based on an off-list discussion, it turns out that unary C=
is not slurpy as mentioned in S04. The following patch to S04
corrects this; I've already applied the patch but thought I'd
pass it by p6l for review/comments/reactions.
Pm
Index: S04.pod
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 07:05:11AM +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
Gaal Yahas wrote:
On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 01:26:31PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
Say I have a class method in FooClass, callable as FooClass.greet():
method greet(Class $class: ) {
say Hello, FooClass!;
}
Aside
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 08:13:55AM +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
Patrick wrote:
method greet(FooClass $class:) { say Hello!; }
No. That needs to be:
method greet(FooClass ::class:) { say Hello!; }
(as implied by takes a class as its invocant in S12).
Okay, I'm a bit confused.
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 11:56:11AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 09:03:57AM -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
: Is '::' acting as a sigil here?
Yes.
: rule variable { sigil name [ \( siglet \) ]? }
: rule sigil { [EMAIL PROTECTED
On Sat, Jun 18, 2005 at 08:18:17AM +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
The point being that methods no longer topicalize their invocant.
To update the design docs, A06 currently says:
Methods, submethods, macros, rules, and pointy subs all
bind their first argument to C$_; ordinary subs
1 - 100 of 329 matches
Mail list logo