On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 12:57:56PM +0200, Chip Salzenberg wrote: > On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 05:18:19PM -0400, William Coleda wrote: > > Looking through the PGE test examples, it *looks* like subrules are just > > globals. > > I'm sure that's not how it'll behave when it's done, though I don't > know PGE well enough yet to suggest how it will work exactly. In the > meantime, I guess you'll need to use the standard mangling tricks > (e.g. prepending "__pge_" to rule names).
At the present, PGE rules are just globals because I've still been working out the details about where rules belong in a namespace. See the thread on perl6-language starting at http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl6.language/21692 . It's looking more and more as though named rules (subrules) are actually methods of class "Rule" or one of its grammar subclasses, and that "PGE::Match" objects (the things being returned from a match) are actually Rule objects. At the moment the only way I know to create a method in a PIR class is to use the .namespace directive and a "method" subpragma at the time the PIR code is compiled -- i.e., I haven't seen a way to take an existing subroutine PMC and install it as a method in an existing class. This isn't a big issue in itself, it just means that one has to supply the name and grammar of the rule at the time the rule is being compiled (rather than compiling a rule and storing the resulting subroutine/method in a symbol table afterwards). Of course, I may be overlooking the right way to do this, but that's where things stand at the moment. Pm
