On Tue, Nov 21, 2000 at 09:39:16PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 11:45 PM 11/21/00 +, Tom Hughes wrote:
> >In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > At 10:18 AM 11/21/00 -0800, Benjamin Stuhl wrote:
> > >
> > > >Well, it would (IMHO) make
At 11:45 PM 11/21/00 +, Tom Hughes wrote:
>In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > At 10:18 AM 11/21/00 -0800, Benjamin Stuhl wrote:
> >
> > >Well, it would (IMHO) make more sense to have
> > >perl6_parse_script (I do tend to follow
> > >{subsys
On Wed, 22 Nov 2000, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> Are we hoping that we can mmap() most scripts, so read isn't hugely a
> problem? And slrp the rest in one? [doesn't feel good]
> Are we going to have "lazy scalars" which collude with the regexp engine
> so that if the regexp engine hits the cu
On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 06:01:52PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> * The parser will be written mostly in perl, so you have regexes and such
> to work with
> * It's possible that the whole set of parsing rules may change on the fly,
> so don't get hung up on constants like "{"--stick to symbolic t
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 10:18 AM 11/21/00 -0800, Benjamin Stuhl wrote:
>
> >Well, it would (IMHO) make more sense to have
> >perl6_parse_script (I do tend to follow
> >{subsystem,verb,object} naming...)
>
> Or Perl$parse_script, but th
At 01:04 PM 11/21/00 +, David Grove wrote:
>Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > At 07:36 AM 11/21/00 -0500, David Grove wrote:
> > >However, one thing is seriously lacking in this theory... if the
>parser is
> > >perl, how does the perl parse? (Sort of a woodchuck chucking wood t
> Okay, you're more confused here than I though.
I can't deny that, but at least I helped get this group talking. The
silence was deafening.
Participation feels good though, when I'm not getting yelled at for being
technically inarticulate (P5P). Maybe if we can keep up the good
attitudes, we c
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 07:36 AM 11/21/00 -0500, David Grove wrote:
> >However, one thing is seriously lacking in this theory... if the
parser is
> >perl, how does the perl parse? (Sort of a woodchuck chucking wood type
of
> >thing.) Somehow, the external parser API thin
At 12:46 PM 11/21/00 +, David Grove wrote:
>Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > At 10:37 AM 11/21/00 +, David Grove wrote:
> > >Thanks for the clarifications, Simon.
> > >
> > >Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >If we were simply feeding it perl with a single synt
Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2000 at 10:37:23AM +, David Grove wrote:
> > I'm not sure that it's possible to do this, or disirable. If Larry
wants
> > Perl to use different modes, creoles, or ways of interpreting or
> > understanding the "perl" language, then
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 10:37 AM 11/21/00 +, David Grove wrote:
> >Thanks for the clarifications, Simon.
> >
> >Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >If we were simply feeding it perl with a single syntax, we could get
away
> >with a "one call" scheme. But sin
At 10:18 AM 11/21/00 -0800, Benjamin Stuhl wrote:
>--- Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > At 10:37 AM 11/21/00 +, David Grove wrote:
> > >Thanks for the clarifications, Simon.
> > >
> > >Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >If we were simply feeding it perl with a single synta
--- Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 10:37 AM 11/21/00 +, David Grove wrote:
> >Thanks for the clarifications, Simon.
> >
> >Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >If we were simply feeding it perl with a single syntax,
> we could get away
> >with a "one call" scheme. But since
At 07:36 AM 11/21/00 -0500, David Grove wrote:
>However, one thing is seriously lacking in this theory... if the parser is
>perl, how does the perl parse? (Sort of a woodchuck chucking wood type of
>thing.) Somehow, the external parser API thingy has to know enough perl
>(through the chosen langua
At 10:37 AM 11/21/00 +, David Grove wrote:
>Thanks for the clarifications, Simon.
>
>Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>If we were simply feeding it perl with a single syntax, we could get away
>with a "one call" scheme. But since we're dealing with almost certainly
>mutually exclusive s
On Tue, Nov 21, 2000 at 10:37:23AM +, David Grove wrote:
> I'm not sure that it's possible to do this, or disirable. If Larry wants
> Perl to use different modes, creoles, or ways of interpreting or
> understanding the "perl" language, then we have to let the parser have a
> bit more informati
On Tue, 21 Nov 2000, David Grove wrote:
> If we were simply feeding it perl with a single syntax, we could get away
> with a "one call" scheme. But since we're dealing with almost certainly
> mutually exclusive syntax and semantics, it probably needs more
> information.
Perhaps the "one call" ca
At 05:04 PM 11/21/00 +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
>(I'm not sure if I've missed all the fun here before I subscribed, but
>I can't anything on the RFC list that mentions the following)
>
>perl5 has a tangle of SvPV macros to allow C code to get a pointer
>to the scalar. (or the "private", with or
On Tue, Nov 21, 2000 at 05:04:32PM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> (I'm not sure if I've missed all the fun here before I subscribed, but
> I can't anything on the RFC list that mentions the following)
>
> perl5 has a tangle of SvPV macros to allow C code to get a pointer
> to the scalar. (or the
(I'm not sure if I've missed all the fun here before I subscribed, but
I can't anything on the RFC list that mentions the following)
perl5 has a tangle of SvPV macros to allow C code to get a pointer
to the scalar. (or the "private", with or without the length, and
more relating to utf8 that don'
Thanks for the clarifications, Simon.
Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2000 at 07:36:11AM -0500, David Grove wrote:
> > > 1) The API presented to the rest of the world. This is likely one
> call,
> >
> > These are almost two separate things entirely. (I don't get t
I would, certainly. But I also think that the group as a whole would enjoy
the preview.
Kirrily "Skud" Robert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This coming Saturday, I'm presenting a paper on Perl 6 (the story so
> far) at the Australian Open Source Symposium.
>
> Is anyone interested in looking
At 12:44 PM 11/21/00 +, Simon Cozens wrote:
>On Tue, Nov 21, 2000 at 07:36:11AM -0500, David Grove wrote:
> > > * The parser needs to be reentrant
> > No clue what this means. I need this defined in context.
>
>While parsing text, you should be able to dive into a separate bit of text,
>parse
At 02:45 PM 11/17/00 +, David Grove wrote:
>Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > At 10:19 AM 11/17/00 -0800, Ken Fox wrote:
> > >However, I don't want to see early (premature) adoption of fundamental
> > >pieces like the VM or parser. It makes sense to me to explore many
> > poss
This coming Saturday, I'm presenting a paper on Perl 6 (the story so
far) at the Australian Open Source Symposium.
Is anyone interested in looking over my notes and commenting on them
in the next couple of days?
K.
--
Kirrily 'Skud' Robert - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://infotrope.net/
Today is t
On Tue, Nov 21, 2000 at 07:36:11AM -0500, David Grove wrote:
> > 1) The API presented to the rest of the world. This is likely one call,
>
> These are almost two separate things entirely. (I don't get the "one call"
> thing. What do you mean?)
A parser does, essentially, one single thing: it ta
I'm still not sure where to start from a technical standpoint, so I'll
just comment and brainstorm until someone more used to this tells me
whether my common cents should be in US Dollars or South African ZAR.
Please forgive a bit of rambling, I'm not purposely off topic if I am.
Dan Sugalski <[
27 matches
Mail list logo
