I think this is one of many steps in the right direction. Actually, I have a
class item defined in my fork as:
class foo
reserve bar scalar;
member bar {
default(bar) = '1';
set(bar) = {some code};
get(bar) = {some code};
ensure(bar) = {some code};
confirm(bar) = {some
On Monday 30 July 2001 17:09, Me wrote:
2. Format (quick to read, quick to write docs that link together;
2 paragraph intro that becomes a daily tip)
Are thinking of making a wiki a key part of the overall picture?
If ya do, make it understand POD and not the normal wikiyikky markup gunk.
This makes no sense. ?: tests a boolean value, which is either true or false.
There is no ternary state for a boolean value. True/False, Yes/No, On/Off,
1/0. Are you suggesting Yes/No/Maybe? Or are you redefining True and False?
Doesn't matter. What you're asking has no counterpart in boolean
Oh boo hoo. Might I suggest a good introductory Perl book?
p
On Saturday 28 July 2001 12:32, raptor wrote:
I've/m never used/ing elseif ( i hate it :) from the time I have to
edit a perl script of other person that had 25 pages non-stop if-elsif
sequence) ... never mind there is two
If you have not been following this thread, then maybe that is
the reason for
the confused-sounding nature of your email.
I would say Simon was the one ignoring an issue and attacking a
person, not
Vijay. I think Vijay was the one pointing out that this person (Me) was
contributing to
On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 05:19:26PM -0700, Daniel S. Wilkerson wrote:
I would say Simon was the one ignoring an issue and attacking
a person, not
Vijay.
You are wrong. Go back through the archives. Vijay has posted four
messages: two of which are critical of Perl, two of which are pretty
-Original Message-
From: Bart Lateur [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2001 10:48 AM
To: Perl 6 Language Mailing List
Subject: Re: Social Reform
On Tue, 12 Jun 2001 08:54:13 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 05:19:26PM -0700, Daniel S. Wilkerson
Well, I *have* been following the discussion. And to me, it looks indeed
like you, Simon, were indeed attacking ME on non-technical grounds.
Vijay just jumped in for him, like a lioness trying to protect her
kittens.
Which he does from time to time, as do most of us, myself likely
Previously, on St. Elsewhere...
Simon(e) writes...
But of course, I'm sure you already know what makes
good language design, because otherwise you wouldn't
be mouthing off in here...
Why is it that Me is *mouthing off*, but you're not? Why is that?
What makes you so *special*? The
Perl is far more practical than experimental.
Not at the moment. That's the problem.
(Note the subtle subject change back to its original intent.)
p
-Original Message-
From: Vijay Singh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2001 10:02 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Python...
Python? Didn't know you were so into tuples...
I thought your head would be turned by Ruby ;-)
It is. But I'm
Where's the likes of David Grove when you need one?
I don't even know what you're talking about.
Leave me alone. I'm learning Python...
again.
p
David Grove writes:
: That's not how I see it. The filehandle is naturally true if it
: succeeds. It's the undef value that wants to have more information.
: In fact, you could view $! as a poor-man's way of extracting the error
: that was attached to the last undef.
:
: If I were
That's not how I see it. The filehandle is naturally true if it
succeeds. It's the undef value that wants to have more information.
In fact, you could view $! as a poor-man's way of extracting the error
that was attached to the last undef.
If I were wealthy enough in time and patience to
--- Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh, didn't Larry tell you? We're making perl's parser locale-aware so
it uses the local language to determine what the keywords are.
I thought that was in the list of things you'd need to take into
account when you wrote the parser... ;-P
On Wed, 16 May 2001, David Grove wrote:
For me, it's the bare minimum amount of Perl you must *use* to
be productive
that I see increasing in our plans and discussions. I'm afraid of Perl
turning into a verbose monstrosity to please verbosity addicts
of languages
whose only point
:
SARCASM=EXTREME
Everyone, please try to stop the downhill descent of the conversation.
This is not just Dave, but others in the thread too.
For the record, the original post in this sequence came from David
Grove, not from me (David Storrs). My response to David was an attempt
On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 04:50:17PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
Pardon my indelicacy, but - Screw how it looks in Perl5.
I'm not telling you how it *looks* in Perl 5, I'm telling you (in Perl 5
terms) what it will *mean*.
nice save
p
On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 01:25:51PM +0200, Bart Lateur wrote:
There must be some reason why a language like Sather isn't more popular.
I think that iters are part of the problem.
That smacks of the Politician's Syllogism:
Something is wrong.
This is something.
Therefore this
-Original Message-
From: Larry Wall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2001 6:05 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: On Vacation
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: And about the whole
throwing-out-baby-in-one-grand-bathwater-disposal-motion
-Original Message-
From: Nathan Torkington [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 10:20 AM
To: Chaim Frenkel
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: perl5 to perl6
Chaim Frenkel writes:
Those are all major typo inducing changes.
You'll need alternative micro-code
Well, I think we should take a step back and answer a few key questions:
1. Do we want to be able to use Perl 5 modules in a
Perl 6 program (without conversion)?
For a while, quite possibly, I'd say.
When 5.6 came out, I was in module hell, trying to get 5.005 modules to
compile
Nathan Wiger writes:
: Maybe the name Perl should be dropped altogether?
No. The Schemers had to do a name change because the Lisp name had
pretty much already been ruined by divergence.
: (Granted, that's not what I'd prefer, but the changes are getting
: rather massive and are
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 03:58:41PM -0400, David Grove wrote:
it's been 13 months since 5.6 was released,
and two commercial entities have so far accepted it:
ActiveState and SuSE.
a complete, barefaced lie.
To be a lie, it must be purposeful. I am not above error, however.
Who do you
-Original Message-
From: Michael G Schwern [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 3:07 PM
To: Larry Wall
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Perl, the new generation
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 11:55:36AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
If you talk that way, people are
Perl 5 is far from stagnant--please don't bend the truth to fit your
points. My impression is that there's quite a bit more constructive
activity on p5p than there was a year ago.
I've stopped paying attention to P5P except for keeping an eye on the
possibility of a new surprise upgrade from
-Original Message-
From: John Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 11:58 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: what I meant about hungarian notation
Larry Wall wrote:
: do you think conflating @ and % would be a perl6 design win?
Nope, I still
/me likes. /me likes a lot.
David T. Grove
Blue Square Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Dave Hartnoll [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 8:56 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Apoc2 - STDIN concerns : new mascot?
-Original Message-
From: Simon Cozens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 8:01 AM
To: Dave Mitchell
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The 5% solution
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 10:19:10AM +0100, Dave Mitchell wrote:
to be such that the writing of the Perl 5 to
Nope, I still think most ordinary people want different operators for
strings than for numbers. Dictionaries and calculators have very
different interfaces in the real world, and it's false economy to
overgeneralize. Witness the travails of people trying to use
cell phones to type
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 10:00:13PM +0100, Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 01:49:30PM -0700, Edward Peschko wrote:
We need to keep syntactic compatibility, which means we need
to keep the
ability for perl6 to USE PERL5.
I think you're in violent agreement here. This
I've been wondering for quite some time whether we were creating a Perl for
the purpose of cleaning up the ridiculously rigged Perl 5 internals, or
creating a Perl for the simple enjoyment of creating a new programming
language. Certainly, recent discussions would point to the latter; as we
move
Incompatible continuity. Sounds like Microsoft marketing.
We're strongly considering keeping compatibility, and rejecting it wherever
we can insert something that looks momentarily cool. Of course your Perl 5
programs will still work, as long as you convert them to Perl 6. We'll have
a parser
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 11:55:36AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
If you talk that way, people are going to start believing it.
[snip]
Some of us are are talking that way because we already
beleive it. You can't make the transition from Attic
Greek to Koine without changing
-Original Message-
From: Adam Turoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 3:31 PM
To: David Goehrig
Cc: Larry Wall; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Perl, the new generation
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 12:13:13PM -0700, David Goehrig wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at
snip
sane indentation by making it part of the language, Perl is a
language that enforces a dialect of hungarian notation by making
its variable decorations an intrinsic part of the language.
But $, @, and % indicate data organization, not type...
Actually they do show type, though not
concerns : new mascot?
On Wed, 9 May 2001 10:24:26 -0400, David Grove wrote:
I remember someone (whether at O'Reilly or
not I don't remember) saying that, even if it looks like a horse
but has a
hump, it's not allowed. Or was that an alpaca with a llama...
The RFC pleads for a community
-Original Message-
From: John Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 11:51 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: what I meant about hungarian notation
David Grove wrote:
$ is a singularity, @ is a multiplicity, and % is a
multiplicity of pairs
An object of type abstracted reference to a chair is _NOT_ an object of
type numeric or string that magicly switches between as needed
So what you're really saying is that references aren't really scalars,
but their own type. Thus they need their own prefix.
But we've sort of run out of
/me ponders the use of a cat in that context... Furball?
David T. Grove
Blue Square Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Simon Cozens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 10:55 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Apoc2 - STDIN
Core Perl is probably trademarked to Sun Microsystems. ;-)
David T. Grove
Blue Square Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: John L. Allen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 1:29 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Apoc2 -
As my Con Law professor was fond of saying, Horse hooey!*
Camel cookies.
;-)
These types of issues are not nearly so clear cut as many company's
would have people believe. E.g., O'Reilly is book publisher that
engages in the business of publishing and selling books for a
profit. They
Probably not if it had scales, webbed feet, a hookbill, antennae, a furry
coontail, and udders. Otherwise, if it looks like a camel at all, it's
considered a trademark violation. I remember someone (whether at O'Reilly or
not I don't remember) saying that, even if it looks like a horse but has a
[...] subject to ethnic
cleansing. Culture wars arise spontaneously, but that should not deter
us from enabling people to build new cultures. [...]
Does that mean we can nuke Redmond and move on to reality in corporate IS
now?
};P
Hungarian notation is any of a variety of standards for organizing
a computer program by selecting a schema for naming your variables
so that their type is readily available to someone familiar with
the notation.
I used to request hungarian notation from programmers who worked for me,
until
I've been recently looking over the specification for C# and the .NET
platform (and falling for very little of the verbage: almost every line of
the first chapter of book I'm reading contains at least one oxymoron), and
am seeing some similarities between some of the proposed goals of Perl 6 and
am seeing some similarities between some of the proposed goals of
Perl 6 and the .NET platform.
. . . many things in .NET have been discussed similarly here.
That's because .NET attempts to address real-world issues.
The goals of .NET are not evil in and of themselves, you know.
Depends
-Original Message-
From: Jarkko Hietaniemi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 5:26 PM
To: David Grove
Cc: Perl 6 Language Mailing List
Subject: Re: .NET
(still waiting
for something original for a change).
You are saying that the Clippy wasn't
John Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Whipp wrote:
A language that doesn't have everything is actually easier to
program
in than some that do.
The obvious reply is: "There's more than one way to do it"
To which the obvious reply is:
'Although the Perl Slogan is
I tried to comment on "apocalypse" in Larry's most likely sense, but there
was a mail flub (now corrected).
Apocalypse is a greek word meaning that which comes out from (apo- eq away
from) hiding, i.e., revelation. In the biblical sense, it refers to
revealing that which was previously unseen or
OK, before this *completely* heads into the direction of advocacy,
which
it's dangerous close to anyway, you need to qualify that.
Uh, have you followed this thread? It's nothing but another perlbashing
session by a verbosity monger who can't handle $.
"Helton, Brandon" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please CC Otto in all replies concerning this topic. I want to make
sure
he
reads how wrong he is about Perl and its readability and I think Simon
sums it
up perfectly here.
Give the braindead no head, Brandon. I've recently come across
"David Grove" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
"Helton, Brandon" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please CC Otto in all replies concerning this topic. I want to make
sure
he
reads how wrong he is about Perl and its readability and I think
Simon
sums it
up perfec
Peter Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 09:36 AM 2/22/2001 +, David Grove wrote:
This is what's scaring me about all this talk about
exceptions... it can break this mold and make Perl into a "complainer
language" belching up uncaught (don't care) exceptions forcing
Bart Lateur [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 21 Feb 2001 17:32:50 -0500 (EST), Sam Tregar wrote:
On Wed, 21 Feb 2001, Bart Lateur wrote:
Actually, it's pretty common. Only, most languages are not as
forgiving
as perl, and what is merely a warning in Perl, is a fatal error in
Simon Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 12:00:45PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
So I ask you - *why* make an artificial deadline? What's the point?
Do you currently believe we're all sufficiently focused on getting the
job done? I ask merely for information.
"John van V" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I actually have a good name...
shakedown (as in cruise, matches CPANTS)
I thought cruise got famous because you couldn't CPANTS.
Personally I would want to pull away from reliance on any corporation
(ask
Dave Grove why)
Please don't.
I'm
Jarkko Hietaniemi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 04:01:25PM +0100, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 08:49:04 -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 03:47:12PM +0100, Johan Vromans wrote:
As an active non-smoker, I'd
"H.Merijn Brand" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 08:49:04 -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 03:47:12PM +0100, Johan Vromans wrote:
As an active non-smoker, I'd appreciate a different name.
Likewise. What's wrong with builders?
Nick, make a decision. As for myself, I won't sit back and watch this.
yaphet jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
despite all "cyber" appearances to the contrary, i'm one of you - but
who?
I've been looking back through my archives trying to figure out who you
are. You are certainly not someone
yaphet jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Feeding the troll:
careful with the troll talk: remember, your god's favorite book
is the "lord of the rings"...chock full of trolls...and hobbits, too!
= example 2: ruby
= now more popular than python in its native japan
Python isn't
[subject]: "It's funny. Laugh."
I know. I was having fun. We haven't had a lurktrollmuffin in here before
and it was a good diversion from the drollery of waiting...
'Sides, I happen to _like_ defending Perl from nonsensicals, especially
particularly abusive ones.
Simon Cozens [EMAIL
yaphet jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Johan Vromans [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As someone else said before me, Perl should not be changed
Just Because We Can. Aspects which have proven usefulness and
are deeply engrained in the Perl
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 04:38 PM 2/15/2001 -0300, Branden wrote:
Yeah. Beginners. I was one too. And I remember always falling on
these...
But that's OK, since we probably don't want any new Perl
programmers...
I've skipped pretty much all this thread so far, but I
Steve Simmons [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paul Johnson wrote:
Has anyone considered the problems associated with XS code, or
whatever
its replacement is?
Pardon my ignorance, but what's XS code?
Simply put (and paraphrastically, so don't nitpick, anyone), XS is using a
funky type of
http://news.cnet.com/investor/news/newsitem/0-9900-1028-4825719-RHAT.html?t
ag=ltnc
I wish I could think of something commensurate to say. I don't think I've
ever seen this much cockamamey horseradish on a single sheet of
cyberpaper. The most absurd part of it is that the bastages actually
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 02:17 PM 2/5/2001 -0200, Branden wrote:
I think that, if you want this behavior, a module that implements
it
would be just fine. (Why muck with "use"?) To use a module name
that seems like it could fit this purpose:
use autoload {
John Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Simon Cozens wrote:
John Porter wrote:
But you need to remember it anyway, so remembering it for time() is
no added burden.
Uhm. NO! Remembering that $x+1 things have changed is an "added
burden"
over remembering that $x things have
Jarkko Hietaniemi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The desire to know the name of the runtime platform is a misdirected
desire.
What you really want to know is whether function Foo will be there,
what
kind of signature it has, whether file Bar will be there, what kind of
format it has, and so
"Ben Tilly" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
"David Grove" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is correct. I left a few months after the release of 5.005. As
for
why Sarathy keeps insisting that we never worked there at the same
time, I
have no idea. We did overlap as far as
"Ben Tilly" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I either was misinformed or misremembered a conversation
from last Fall. Sarathy pointed out to me that David
Grove not only was not working at ActiveState when 5.6.0
came out, Sarathy does not think that David was working
there when Sa
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 22.39 -0500 01.14.2001, David Grove wrote:
I think that "charter" would be more palatable than "manifesto",
although
I won't lose the sentiment in semantics. I've been thinking the same
thing, and agree entirely. Whereas t
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please make sense if you are going to address me in the future, or
simply
don't bother addressing me at all. Thanks,
Following the thread(s), in order for this working group to make sense,
there must be a reason to look at our licenses. We have found
"Bradley M. Kuhn" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Grove [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Then there is no point in working with licenses at all. If licenses
will
not be enforced through litigation and our desires for the Perl
language
cannot be enforced through public censure,
I'll retract partially. The precise reference I had in mind was in fact on
the GNU site linked from Debian.org, my mistake, although I've definitely
seen overwhelming GNUism among Debians. Here is a quick question as I
asked it on UnderNET and got an immediate and definite response (I'm
eapoe):
Simon Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 10:43:36AM -0500, Chris Nandor wrote:
No. It was to have Windows support built-in to the standard
distribution.
I see.
I notice that you still haven't told me which part of clause three they
actually kept.
--
Dave Rolsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jan 2001, David Grove wrote:
1. What if a company, ANY company, whether through collusion or by
any
other means, historically has had, currently has, or in the future
will
have, the ability to disregard the perl license mechanism
"Ben Tilly" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Speaking personally the Perl 5.6.0 disaster (and I
consider it no less) has made me a lot more cynical
about Perl and willing to look at switching languages.
I do not currently know whether I will make the Perl 5
to Perl 6 transition...
I'd
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You may have a good point here. Perhaps we want a Perl Manifesto that
lays out our base goals in plain English, separate from any licensing
scheme. At the least, it could serve as documentation for *why* Perl
is
dual-licensed, since this keeps
"Ben Tilly" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
"John van V" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, this the ~only~ obvious thing here. What I
just learned from the GNU/FSF/UWIN/MinGW issue is that
perl ~is~ legally defined as an operating system.
Defined by who? I am curious here.
I believe,
You know having you not have a clue who you are talking to
is getting really annoying. Hello David, my name is Ben
Tilly. I am the guy who flamed Tom Christiansen on p5p
[...]
In any case if you want action on that it is better to
start by saying that and not take threads that are
This was the subject of a list and an RFC. I'd hope not to see what we
worked hard to come up with not go to waste, guys and gals. We came up
with a "least of all evils" solution, I think, and I feel very strongly
that not protecting Perl from outright theft, especially using very iffy
licenses
I have an idea. Send that japanese to Larry and have him translate it.
However he translates it, it's official.
p
Jeff Okamoto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jan 05, 2001 at 09:42:12PM -0500, Brian Finney wrote:
say we start with this number
123,456,789
one hundred
"Bryan C. Warnock" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 05 Jan 2001, Piers Cawley wrote:
But, but... 0.21 is *not* 'point twenty one', it's 'point two one',
otherwise you get into weirdness with: .21 and .210 being spoken as
'point twenty one' and 'point two hundred (?:and)? ten' and all
"Bradley M. Kuhn" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Liceses. Bletch.
Don't blame the licenses, blame the copyright law that makes them an
unfortunate necessity in many cases.
And the thieves who steal the intellectual property and claim it as their
own turf in the first place.
What are we talking
Andy Dougherty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 18 Dec 2000, David Grove wrote:
Andy Dougherty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think you misunderstand. I think it should be very easy to *use* a
hypothetical Pythonish module. I don't expect it will be very easy to
create
Sam Tregar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 17 Dec 2000, David Grove wrote:
Ok, my C's rather rusty, but are we interested in parsing that?
Yes. I've heard people talk about a C frontend. Will it ever see the
light? I don't know. Does it matter? I don't think so.
Sorry, Sam
Sam Tregar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
possible, right? Are you saying you don't think we should make it
possible for someone to write a C parser for Perl?
For the full language spec, I don't think it's attainable, and honestly
don't see the reason for it within the context of Perl. It
Andy Dougherty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That sounds too complex for what seems like a more simple solution.
When
you say "turn simple 'languages' into perl", that's what Dan's told
me is
my source filter.
Correct. perl-byacc is a source filter. It takes in yacc source and
Andy Dougherty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The issues of 'use Python' or 'use Pythonish' are a quite different
issue.
I don't think anyone believes it ought to be easy to *write* the
Pythonish
module.
I do.
That's the problem. This is a nearly ubiquitously desired objective
(writing the
Bart Lateur [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 17 Dec 2000 14:11:50 -0700 (MST), Nathan Torkington wrote:
I think the problems with this that were raised in the past are:
* parsing partial source
* does this mean that the parser has to reparse the whole sourcefile
every time you
Nicholas Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Dec 18, 2000 at 11:30:09AM +, David Grove wrote:
Bart Lateur [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But, the gist of this post is: we don't want to loose the
usefulness
of
the syntax highlighter, as soon as there is one syntax error
Sam Tregar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 18 Dec 2000, David Grove wrote:
[snip]
_Perl_ _within_ _a_ _Perl_ _context_ _and_ _for_ _Perl_ _purposes_,
Feeling a little hostile to the rest of the programming world? You're
sounding almost nationalistic! We're not at war
Nicholas Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Dec 17, 2000 at 12:43:15PM +, Simon Cozens wrote:
On Sun, Dec 17, 2000 at 01:20:07AM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
I'm assuming we're all sort of thinking that input is certainly
[good stuff]
Thanks, but you were supposed to
Andy Dougherty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 16 Dec 2000, David Grove wrote:
Because what is the parser/lexer/tokenizer parsing? Perl? Pythonic?
Javanese? All of them? Thinking of just the parser as a single entity
seems to me to be headed into trouble unless we can define
Sam Tregar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I imagine that each supported language will likely have its own
prefered
parsing strategy. Some will be perfectly lex-yacc-able. Some will be
more like Perl than that and would benefit from some hooks into Perl's
existing parser. I think we just
Sam Tregar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 17 Dec 2000, Dan Sugalski wrote:
For my part, at least, I've been thinking of something either
LISP-ish
or very simple parameter setting/checking (like stuff in, say, your
average .rc file with a little control flow thrown in) when it's
Simon Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Simon (?) brought up the problem that we might end up with a
monolithic
beastie
I don't recall saying anything about it being a problem. :)
Ok, it scared somebody. That much I remember.
Reading what you say, "parser/lexer/tokenizer" (multiple
Open Source Writers Group (http://oswg.org/) is a good starting point.
I'm subscribed to their mailing list. I can think of a couple of
other
good places to try, too, but they're a bit politically incorrect to
mention in this context :-/
Who on earth would be considered politically
Kirrily Skud Robert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 11:28:31AM -0800, Nathan Wiger wrote:
Anyways, that's just one suggestion. Do I have any idea where to find
these mythical people? No, unfortunately. Perhaps some feelers on
newsgroups might be a good place to
1 - 100 of 175 matches
Mail list logo
