Joseph F. Ryan wrote in perl.perl6.language : > > If the final design stays the way it is now, there really won't be > a "lexer". Instead, a perl6 grammar parses the data, and builds up > a huge match-object as it, well, matches. This match object is then > munged into the optree.
Oh, yes, I remember now. Thanks. > This means the grammar probably won't be anything resembling simple, > since it has to act as both a lexer and a parser at the same time. > However, that's not to say your hack couldn't work; in fact, it would > be easy to implement during the match-object-munging phase. Indeed. > However, it still treats C<if> as special syntax, which is the real issue > at hand.. > > I question whether treating C<if> as a function rather than as built-in > syntax will make the parser any simpler if "special block rules" keep > getting added to simply make it work. I'm in favor of keeping a few > "special blocks" if it makes things easier to implement/design in the > long run. Makes sense. Note that I'm not advocating "elsif", quite an horrible keyword, that I still mispell as "elseif" sometimes. But I like hacking on grammars ;-)
