Andy Wardley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Jun 08, 2002 at 06:51:19AM +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
I have no doubt that, once Perl 6 is available, we'll see a rash of
modules released in the Grammar:: namespace. Including
Grammar::HTML and Grammar::XML.
I have no doubt that, once Perl 6
Dave Storrs wrote:
Can we please have a 'reverse x' modifier that means treat whitespace as
literals? Yes, we are living in a Unicode world now and your data could
/FATAL ERROR\:Process (\d+) received signal\: (\d+)/
I don't see how this example is nearly as flexible as
Damian Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] outlined his plans for world domination:
[...]
EvilScientist face=red
Dammit, you fools! Do I have to think of *everything*??? Just tie him to a
steel bench and apply the Ruby laser!
I do apologize, Mr Wardley. Good evil assistants are just impossible to
On Sun, Jun 09, 2002 at 03:34:16PM +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
Trey Harris wrote:
rule val {
[ # quoted
$b := [']
( [ \\. | . ]*? )
$b
] | # or not
(\H+)
}
Not quite. Assigning to $b is a capture.
I'm confused. The examples in A5 all
I assume that 'fatal.pm' is a new pragma.
1) What (if anything) does it do, aside from turning 'fail' into a fatal
exception when used outside a regex?
2) Do you need to use it before you can (usefully) use 'fail' INSIDE a
regex? (I would assume not, but thought I'd check.)
Dave
On Fri,
On Mon, 10 Jun 2002, Dave Storrs wrote:
I assume that 'fatal.pm' is a new pragma.
Already exists for Perl 5, actually.
1) What (if anything) does it do, aside from turning 'fail' into a fatal
exception when used outside a regex?
What fatal currently does is wrap built-ins that might
On Mon, 10 Jun 2002, Larry Wall wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jun 2002, Dave Storrs wrote:
I assume that 'fatal.pm' is a new pragma.
Already exists for Perl 5, actually.
*blush* Must have missed it. Drat, and I just finished rereading
Camel III. Apologies.
Dave
On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, Luke Palmer wrote:
Dave Storrs wrote:
Can we please have a 'reverse x' modifier that means treat whitespace as
literals? Yes, we are living in a Unicode world now and your data could
/FATAL ERROR\:Process (\d+) received signal\: (\d+)/
I don't see how this
Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
rule val {
[ # quoted
$b := [']
( [ \\. | . ]*? )
$b
] | # or not
(\H+)
}
Not quite. Assigning to $b is a capture.
I'm confused. The examples in A5 all show $var := (pattern). So are you
saying that
On Sat, Jun 08, 2002 at 06:51:19AM +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
I have no doubt that, once Perl 6 is available, we'll see a rash of modules
released in the Grammar:: namespace. Including Grammar::HTML and Grammar::XML.
I have no doubt that, once Perl 6 is available, we'll see a rash of modules
I have no doubt that, once Perl 6 is available, we'll see a
rash of modules released in the Grammar:: namespace.
Including Grammar::Romana,
Grammar::Klingon, Grammar::Buffy, Grammer::Mispelt, and others... :-)
Grammar::Python, Grammar::Ruby, Grammar::PHP ?
R.
Richard Nuttall wrote:
I have no doubt that, once Perl 6 is available, we'll see a
rash of modules released in the Grammar:: namespace.
Including Grammar::Romana,
Grammar::Klingon, Grammar::Buffy, Grammer::Mispelt, and others... :-)
Grammar::Python, Grammar::Ruby, Grammar::PHP ?
I
Damian Conway:
# Richard Nuttall wrote:
#
# I have no doubt that, once Perl 6 is available, we'll see
# a rash of
# modules released in the Grammar:: namespace. Including
# Grammar::Romana, Grammar::Klingon, Grammar::Buffy,
# Grammer::Mispelt,
# and others... :-)
#
#
At 10:21 PM 6/9/2002 +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
Richard Nuttall wrote:
Grammar::Python, Grammar::Ruby, Grammar::PHP ?
I should imagine that the first two at least would be very likely, given that
we wish both of those languages to run on top of Parrot.
Given that by the time Parrot is beefy
In a message dated Sun, 9 Jun 2002, Damian Conway writes:
Trey Harris wrote:
rule parsetag :w {
lt $tagname :=identifier
%attrs := [ (identifier) =
(val)
]*
/?
gt
}
On second reading, it occurs to me that this
EvilScientist cat=white
Ah, Mr Wardley, I see you have finally apprehended the magnitude of my
nefarious plan. Five years of plotting and scheming, of gaining influence and
gradually insinuating my dastardly code creations into the community
consciousness: all
about to culminate in unleashing
Trey Harris wrote:
On second reading, it occurs to me that this wouldn't work quite right,
because the :w would imply a \s+ between lt and identifier, between
the equals, and before the gt.
No. Under :w you get \s+ between literal sequences that are potential identifiers, and
\s* between
Erik Steven Harrison henched:
Ahhh, duh . . . Docter Claw . . .er Conway, uh, the Python always throws up
Perl Coders . . . Shoulds we maybe bash him with the Giant Shell, or TCL him
to death . . .
EvilScientist face=red
Dammit, you fools! Do I have to think of *everything*??? Just tie him
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Likewise, could we please have a modifier that makes literal, and
aliases
as something else so *ml can match easier?
I very much doubt it.
But I'm sure someone will eventually write the five-line (!) module that
changes
assertion to assertion, thereby freeing
On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, Peschko, Edward wrote:
: Let me get this straight. the grammar of Perl is reprogrammable,
: and expressed in perl6. And a script is parsed using this grammar,
: on the fly, hence portions of scripts could have different grammars
: than other parts.
Where have you been for the
Dave Storrs yiked:
Yikes. Ok, I obviously badly misunderstood that. I'll go back
and reread it. So, can you provide an example of a pattern nested
within a closure, since I obviously didn't understand?
Sure:
m/ if { /comment? ::: keyword/ and print $0.{comment} } /
The
Dave Storrs wrote:
I admit I'm a bit nervous about that...so far, I'm completely sold on
(basically) all the new features and changes in Perl 6, and I'm eagerly
anticipating working with them. But this level of change...I don't know.
I've spent a lot of time getting to be (reasonaly) good
At 10:59 PM -0700 6/6/02, Dave Storrs wrote:
Page 8:
The u1-u3 mods all say level 1 support. I assume this was a typo, and
they should go (u1 = 'level 1', u2 = 'level 2', u3 = 'level 3').
Yeah. I'd avoid these if you can manage. There's not a whole lot of
reason to mandate Unicode in a lot of
Note: My answers are non-authoritative. Don't trust me.
Can we please have a 'reverse x' modifier that means treat whitespace as
literals? Yes, we are living in a Unicode world now and your data could
theoretically be coming in from a different character set than expected.
But there are
On 6/6/02 11:43 PM, Damian Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] claimed:
/ $2:=(.*?), \h* $1:=(.*) /
Does this imply that $1, $2, etc are now read-write outside of regexen?
No.
Maybe this is a RTFM question, but does Perl 6 (or Perl 5, for that matter)
have some magical array that holds all
--- David Wheeler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/6/02 11:43 PM, Damian Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] claimed:
/ $2:=(.*?), \h* $1:=(.*) /
Does this imply that $1, $2, etc are now read-write outside of regexen?
No.
Maybe this is a RTFM question, but does Perl 6 (or Perl 5, for
On 6/7/02 10:12 AM, Jonathan E. Paton [EMAIL PROTECTED] claimed:
A5, under RFC 072: Variable-length lookbehind:
Did I mention that the magical @+ and @- arrays are gonna be real dead?
Never could remember which one was which anyway...
Not to mention kinda useless. I was hoping for a
On 6/7/02 11:21 AM, David Wheeler [EMAIL PROTECTED] claimed:
Not to mention kinda useless. I was hoping for a magic array that would hold
the actual *matches*, rather than pointers to their character positions.
And it appears to be C@$0. Duh. Sorry for the noise, folks.
David
--
David
On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, David Wheeler wrote:
I was hoping for a magic array that would hold
the actual *matches*, rather than pointers to their character positions.
A5 says that $0 is that array.
Larry
On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, Dave Storrs wrote:
Just to be sure I understood: you meant that (A) yes, you can use
fail in a subroutine outside a regex, and (B) if you do, it is no
different from die. Is that correct?
Depends on the caller's use of use fatal. If they don't use fatal,
it
Can we please have a 'reverse x' modifier that means treat whitespace as
literals?
I'll talk about that with Larry. If he were to approve it, it might possibly
be :W.
Likewise, could we please have a modifier that makes literal, and aliases
as something else so *ml can match easier?
The
The most serious objection to this was 'well, use modules for matching *ml -
which simply points out that the current incarnation of perl6 regex doesn'
t handle a very large class of matching problems very well.
The modules use regexes. They just spend more time on them and make them
better
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Likewise, could we please have a modifier that makes literal, and aliases
as something else so *ml can match easier?
I very much doubt it.
But I'm sure someone will eventually write the five-line (!) module that
changes
assertion to assertion, thereby freeing up
In a message dated Fri, 7 Jun 2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The most serious objection to this was 'well, use modules for matching *ml -
which simply points out that the current incarnation of perl6 regex doesn'
t handle a very large class of matching problems very well.
I don't think
On 6/7/02 4:48 PM, Luke Palmer wrote:
rule tag($name) {:w \ $name %opts:=[ (\S+)=(\S+) ]* \ }
Then, you can match an img tag with:
/ tag 'img' /
See, isn't that great?
Don't you mean, see, isn't that massively over-simplified? ;)
(but yeah, we get the idea... :)
-John
On 6/7/02 4:51 PM, Damian Conway wrote:
I have no doubt that, once Perl 6 is available, we'll see a rash of modules
released in the Grammar:: namespace. Including Grammar::HTML and Grammar::XML.
Why not just make Grammar::DTD, and then make Grammar::Generator::FromDTD.
Then use those to make
On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, John Siracusa wrote:
On 6/7/02 4:48 PM, Luke Palmer wrote:
rule tag($name) {:w \ $name %opts:=[ (\S+)=(\S+) ]* \ }
Then, you can match an img tag with:
/ tag 'img' /
See, isn't that great?
Don't you mean, see, isn't that massively over-simplified? ;)
John Siracusa wrote:
I have no doubt that, once Perl 6 is available, we'll see a rash of modules
released in the Grammar:: namespace. Including Grammar::HTML and Grammar::XML.
Why not just make Grammar::DTD, and then make Grammar::Generator::FromDTD.
Then use those to make all the other
f
On Fri, Jun 07, 2002 at 05:10:49PM -0400, Trey Harris wrote:
In a message dated Fri, 7 Jun 2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The most serious objection to this was 'well, use modules for matching *ml -
which simply points out that the current incarnation of perl6 regex doesn'
t handle a
On 6/7/02 5:44 PM, Damian Conway wrote:
John Siracusa wrote:
I have no doubt that, once Perl 6 is available, we'll see a rash of modules
released in the Grammar:: namespace. Including Grammar::HTML and
Grammar::XML.
Why not just make Grammar::DTD, and then make Grammar::Generator::FromDTD.
40 matches
Mail list logo
