In a message dated 27 Aug 2002, Uri Guttman writes:
LW == Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
LW On 27 Aug 2002, Uri Guttman wrote: : and quoteline might even
LW default to for its delim which would make : that line:
LW :
LW : my ($fields) = /(quotelike|\S+)/;
LW That just
Will there be automatic calling of the deserialization method
for objects, so that code like this DWIMs...
my Date $bday = 'June 25, 2002';
Err... what do you mean it to do?
Wow, this is nice. He means (I think) that this will be translated into
my Date $bday = Date-new('June 25,
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Wow, this is nice. He means (I think) that this will be translated into
my Date $bday = Date-new('June 25, 2002');
I rather like it too, but it hinges on how strictly typing is enforced. If
typing is strictly enforced then it works because the VM can always know
that
On Wed, 2002-08-28 at 03:23, Trey Harris wrote:
Note--no parens around $field. We're not capturing here, not in the
Perl 5 sense, anyway.
When a pattern consisting of only a named rule invokation (possibly
quantified) matches, it returns the result object, which in boolean
context
In a message dated 28 Aug 2002, Aaron Sherman writes:
Ok, just to be certain:
$_ = 0;
my $zilch = /0/ || 1;
Is $zilch C0 or 8?
8? How do you get 8? You'd get a result object which stringified was 0
and booleanfied was true. So here, you'd get a result object vaguely
Piers Cawley wrote:
Uri Guttman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
{...]
couldn't that be reduced to:
m{^\s* $stuff := [ (.*?) | (\S+) ] };
the | will only return one of the grabbed chunks and the result of
the [] group would be assigned to $stuff.
Hmm... is this the first Perl 6 golf post?
I have no objection to pattern operators like ::: in principle, but I do
have a potential concern about them.
Given that the operators are actually defined in terms of backtracking
within the RE engine, does this constrain the implementation such that it
MUST be a backtracking implementation
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Deven T. Corzine) writes:
Would it be _possible_ to create a non-backtracking implementation of a
Perl 6 pattern engine
I don't believe that it is, but not just because of : and friends.
Why does it matter?
--
Life sucks, but it's better than the alternative.
-- Peter da
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Wow, this is nice. He means (I think) that this will be translated into
my Date $bday = Date-new('June 25, 2002');
I don't think this is going to work. First off, there
is no predefined constructor name in Perl. Secondly,
you can have multiple constructors in the
On Wednesday, August 28, 2002, at 06:11 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Is there some kind of third option? I have to admit I've always found
Java
commands like Date bday = new Date('June 25, 2002') somehow
redundant.
I have to agree with this. Ideally, IMO, there'd be some magic going on
At 10:36 AM +0200 8/28/02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Will there be automatic calling of the deserialization method
for objects, so that code like this DWIMs...
my Date $bday = 'June 25, 2002';
Err... what do you mean it to do?
Wow, this is nice. He means (I think) that this will be
At 10:57 AM -0400 8/28/02, Deven T. Corzine wrote:
Would it be _possible_ to create a non-backtracking implementation of a
Perl 6 pattern engine, or does the existence of backtracking-related
operators preclude this possibility in advance?
In general, no of course it's not possible to create a
On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 12:17:55PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 10:36 AM +0200 8/28/02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Will there be automatic calling of the deserialization method
for objects, so that code like this DWIMs...
my Date $bday = 'June 25, 2002';
Err... what do you mean
On 28 Aug 2002, Simon Cozens wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Deven T. Corzine) writes:
Would it be _possible_ to create a non-backtracking implementation of a
Perl 6 pattern engine
I don't believe that it is, but not just because of : and friends.
Why does it matter?
I'm not saying we
On Wed, 28 Aug 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 10:57 AM -0400 8/28/02, Deven T. Corzine wrote:
Would it be _possible_ to create a non-backtracking implementation of a
Perl 6 pattern engine, or does the existence of backtracking-related
operators preclude this possibility in advance?
In
On Wed, 28 Aug 2002, David Wheeler wrote:
: I have to agree with this. Ideally, IMO, there'd be some magic going on
: behind the scenes (maybe with a pragma?) that automatically typed
: variables so we wouldn't have to be so redundant, the code would look
: more like (most) Perl 5 OO stuff,
At 5:29 PM +0100 8/28/02, Nicholas Clark wrote:
On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 12:17:55PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 10:36 AM +0200 8/28/02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Will there be automatic calling of the deserialization method
for objects, so that code like this DWIMs...
my Date
On Wed, 28 Aug 2002, Deven T. Corzine wrote:
Would it be better for the matching of (Jun|June) to be undefined and
implementation-dependent? Or is it best to require leftmost semantics?
For an alternation spelled out explicitly in the pattern, it seems like
undefined matching would be
On Wednesday, August 28, 2002, at 09:56 AM, Larry Wall wrote:
my Date $date { 'June 25, 2002' };
Either way, this makes data declarations more like sub declarations
in syntax, though the semantics of what you do with the final closure
when are obviously different. That is, for
On Wed, 28 Aug 2002, Deven T. Corzine wrote:
: I'm not saying we should dump the operators -- if we get more power by
: assuming a backtracking implementation, maybe that's a worthwhile tradeoff.
:
: On the other hand, if we can keep the implementation possibilities more
: open, that's always
#!/usr/local/bin/perl
$mail_prog = '/usr/lib/sendmail' ;
# This script was generated automatically by Perl
Builder(tm): http://www.solutionsoft.com
# ***ENDAUTOGEN:HEADER*** Do NOT modify this line!!
You may enter custom code after this line.
# ***AUTOGEN:INPUT*** Do NOT modify this line!! Do
#!/usr/local/bin/perl
$mail_prog = '/usr/lib/sendmail' ;
# This script was generated automatically by Perl
Builder(tm): http://www.solutionsoft.com
# ***ENDAUTOGEN:HEADER*** Do NOT modify this line!!
You may enter custom code after this line.
# ***AUTOGEN:INPUT*** Do NOT modify this line!! Do
and for them to interact.
http://magicauction.netfirms.com/index.html
trying to get the preview auction link to go to
auction.cgi, and the link for new user to go to
newuser.cgi which are both in the cgi-bin
=
frank crowley
__
Do You Yahoo!?
# New Ticket Created by Andy Dougherty
# Please include the string: [perl #16818]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=16818
I discovered 'make languages' yesterday. The enclosed patch cleans up a
lot of
On Fri, 23 Aug 2002 16:56:54 +0200 Aldo Calpini [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I stumbled upon this because I'm trying to implement an
Iterator PMC (almost done), and the most obvious way I've
found to bind the iterator to what it should iterate is this
one:
new P0, .PerlHash
new P1,
Re: [perl6-language] Does ::: constrain the pattern engine implementation?
On Wed, 28 Aug 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
A medium-term goal for the regex engine is to note where a DFA would give
correct behaviour and use one, rather than going through the more
expensive generalized regex engine
So, folks...
How're we coming with the perl 6 regex stuff? What works, what
doesn't, and are we at a state where we can release something for
people to play with?
--
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan
At 10:36 AM -0700 8/28/02, Larry Wall wrote:
On Wed, 28 Aug 2002, Deven T. Corzine wrote:
: I'm not saying we should dump the operators -- if we get more power by
: assuming a backtracking implementation, maybe that's a worthwhile tradeoff.
:
: On the other hand, if we can keep the implementation
This is really the wrong place to be sending this. This is Perl 5 (or
maybe even Perl 4, which I don't know) code, and this is a list for
discussing the design of Perl 6. A good place to send this would
probably be [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Good Luck,
Luke
On Wed, 28 Aug 2002, frank crowley
On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 12:55:44PM -0400, Deven T. Corzine wrote:
On Wed, 28 Aug 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 10:57 AM -0400 8/28/02, Deven T. Corzine wrote:
On the other hand, :, ::, ::: and commit don't necessarily need to be a
problem if they can be treated as hints that can be
On Wed, 28 Aug 2002, Larry Wall wrote:
That is a worthy consideration, but expressiveness takes precedence
over it in this case.
I see nothing wrong with expressiveness taking precedence -- I'm only
saying that it would be best to be cognizant of any restrictions we're
hardcoding into the
Hi,
Now that we've got ICU in, I thought it may be time to revisit the
encodings implementation. I am a clamorous ignorant is
unicode/encodings issues, so please be patient with me. :)
From what I have asked people at IRC, and what's on the list archives,
my understanding of how parrot will
On Wed, 28 Aug 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
How're we coming with the perl 6 regex stuff? What works, what
doesn't, and are we at a state where we can release something for
people to play with?
There are plenty of things, like anonymous rules, any of the builtin
assertions, and modifiers, that
I note that currently imcc uses Bison and Flex. Is there any compelling
reason for this? I've sort of got it working with Sun's yacc and flex. Do
folks think it would be worthwhile for me to polish things up a bit and
post patches so it builds fine with either?
Or is the use of Bison/Flex a
On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 01:18:19PM -0400, Deven T. Corzine wrote:
Re: [perl6-language] Does ::: constrain the pattern engine implementation?
On Wed, 28 Aug 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
A medium-term goal for the regex engine is to note where a DFA would give
correct behaviour and use one,
On 28 Aug 2002 at 16:04, Steffen Mueller wrote:
Piers Cawley wrote:
Uri Guttman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
... regex code ...
Hmm... is this the first Perl 6 golf post?
Well, no, for two reasons:
a) There's whitespace.
b) The time's not quite ready for Perl6 golf because Larry's the
Sean O'Rourke wrote:
I hope this is wrong, because if not, it breaks this:
if 1 { do something }
foo $x;
in weird ways. Namely, it gets parsed as:
if(1, sub { do something }, foo($x));
which comes out as wrong number of arguments to `if', which is just
strange.
Any
On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 12:00:55AM +0300, Markus Laire wrote:
And I'm definitely going to try any future PerlGolf challenges also
in perl6.
Is it considered better if perl6 use more characters than perl5? (ie
implying probably less line noise)
or less (getting your job done more tersely?)
It
Damian Conway wrote:
Any subroutine/function like Cif that has a signature (parameter list)
that ends in a Csub argument can be parsed without the trailing
semicolon. So Cif's signature is:
sub if (bool $condition, block);
So what does the signature for Cwhile look like? I've been
Thom Boyer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
sub while (bool $test, body);
sub while (test, body);
But neither of these really works.
The first would imply that the test is evaluated only once
(and that once is
before 'sub while' is even called). That'd be useless.
It
Nicholas Clark wrote:
On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 12:00:55AM +0300, Markus Laire wrote:
And I'm definitely going to try any future PerlGolf challenges also
in perl6.
Is it considered better if perl6 use more characters than perl5? (ie
implying probably less line noise)
or less (getting your
Nicholas Clark wrote:
[...]
If the compiler were able to see that my Date $bday = 'June 25, 2002';
is one statement that both types $bday as Date, and then assigns a
constant to it, is it possible to do the conversion of that constant
to a constant $bday object at compile time? (and hence get
On Wed, 28 Aug 2002, Thom Boyer wrote:
: Damian Conway wrote:
: Any subroutine/function like Cif that has a signature (parameter list)
: that ends in a Csub argument can be parsed without the trailing
: semicolon. So Cif's signature is:
:
: sub if (bool $condition, block);
:
: So
On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Markus Laire wrote:
(only 32bit numbers, modulo not fully working, no capturing regexps,
)
Where does modulo break?
/s
On Wed, 28 Aug 2002, Damian Conway wrote:
Any subroutine/function like Cif that has a signature (parameter list)
that ends in a Csub argument can be parsed without the trailing
semicolon. So Cif's signature is:
sub if (bool $condition, block);
So the trailing semicolon isn't
On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Steffen Mueller wrote:
Nicholas Clark wrote:
On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 12:00:55AM +0300, Markus Laire wrote:
And I'm definitely going to try any future PerlGolf challenges also
in perl6.
Is it considered better if perl6 use more characters than perl5? (ie
implying
Second, is there a prototype-way to specify the arguments to for
(specifically, the first un-parentesized multidimensional array argument)?
In other words, is that kind of signature expected to be used often enough
to justify not forcing people to explicitly extend the grammar?
If you're
On Wed, 28 Aug 2002, Luke Palmer wrote:
Second, is there a prototype-way to specify the arguments to for
(specifically, the first un-parentesized multidimensional array argument)?
In other words, is that kind of signature expected to be used often enough
to justify not forcing people to
Codename Octarine
Schedule as follows:
August 29, 8am EDT: Code slush, only bug and warning fixes allowed.
August 30, 11:59pm EDT: Code freeze and pretag
August 31, 00:59 EDT: Tag and Release
--
Jeff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 5:19 PM -0700 8/28/02, Larry Wall wrote:
On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Steffen Mueller wrote:
: Nicholas Clark wrote:
: [...]
: If the compiler were able to see that my Date $bday = 'June 25, 2002';
: is one statement that both types $bday as Date, and then assigns a
: constant to it, is it possible
On Wed, 28 Aug 2002, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
: Being able to specify fixed arguments after a splat looks illegal, or at
: least immoral. It opens the door to backtracking in argument parsing,
: e.g.:
:
: sub foo (*@args, func, *@more_args, $arg, func) { ... }
:
: Saying specifically a list
I discovered 'make languages' yesterday. The enclosed patch cleans up a
lot of small nits I found in the build process. In a number of cases, the
Makefiles were running perl scripts as
./script
rather than as
$(PERL) script
A few other places called a plain 'perl' instead of
The use of ar rcs to build a library and reconstruct the symbol table
is non-portable. (Mac OS X, for example, doesn't support the
's' option to ar.)
Yes, I had noticed that, and was hoping someone more knowledgeable would
help out with our build problems. :)
The following patch changes
53 matches
Mail list logo
