On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:43:00 +, Luke Palmer wrote:
> Damian wrote:
>> caller :{.label eq 'MAINLOOP"};
> Errr what is that odd and disturbing notation? I don't recall ever seeing
> that.
It's vaguely sinister. Must be the moustache operator.
-- c
On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 11:36:13PM +, Simon Cozens wrote:
Seriously, someone on IRC the other day was claiming that they already
had a P6RE-in-P5 implementation, and did show me some code, but I've
forgotten where it lives or their real name.
http://www.liacs.nl/~mavduin/P6P5_0.00_01.tar.gz
Tha
On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 10:34:26AM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
> Brent Dax wrote:
>
> > First of all, Larry, do you have *any* idea how difficult you're making
> > my life? :^) This stuff is damn hard to implement--I'm at 450 lines
> > and counting, and I haven't even started the semantic analys
Larry Wall wrote:
On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 01:07:32PM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
: Larry wrote:
: > A file-scoped $_ could be considered a sort of a half-way house to full
: > signatured $_ semantics. You couldn't clobber some other module's $_,
: > but you still get a dynamically scoped $_ where
On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 01:07:32PM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
: Larry wrote:
: > A file-scoped $_ could be considered a sort of a half-way house to full
: > signatured $_ semantics. You couldn't clobber some other module's $_,
: > but you still get a dynamically scoped $_ where naive users expect
Luke Palmer wrote:
return :Block @foo;
want :Method Lazy;
caller :{.label eq 'MAINLOOP"};
Errr what is that odd and disturbing notation? I don't recall
ever seeing that.
Perhaps not. Larry has long been hoarding the colon. One of the possible uses
for it was as an int
Or maybe C is just the way we spell the adverb specifier?
And therefore, in turn, perhaps C is how we set properties on a
subroutine call:
foo('bar') where error('fatal');
Then, within the subroutine call, one can access them via C<&_.props>:
sub foo($arg) {
return 1 if $arg eq
Damian wrote:
> Alternatively, this might be an ideal spot for adverbs:
>
> return :Block @foo;
> want :Method Lazy;
> caller :{.label eq 'MAINLOOP"};
Errr what is that odd and disturbing notation? I don't recall
ever seeing that.
> [...]
> return Block: @foo;
>
Larry wrote:
On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 01:07:32PM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
: >I specifically avoided "type" or "kind" because I didn't want to imply
: >mere type matching when something more general might be happening,
: >such as smart matching, of which type matching is a small subset.
:
: So ma
On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 01:07:32PM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
: >I specifically avoided "type" or "kind" because I didn't want to imply
: >mere type matching when something more general might be happening,
: >such as smart matching, of which type matching is a small subset.
:
: So maybe $which wo
Larry wrote:
: The invocant is bound to both.
Hmmm. I'm not so sure. I can argue it both ways. Sure, it's nice
to be able to attach an absolute rule to "method", but I'm inclined
to think that unsigged methods work a little more like Perl 5 in
that case, and just put the invocant (or rather le
On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 10:34:26AM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
: Brent Dax wrote:
:
: >First of all, Larry, do you have *any* idea how difficult you're making
: >my life? :^) This stuff is damn hard to implement--I'm at 450 lines
: >and counting, and I haven't even started the semantic analysis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damian Conway) writes:
> Thanks for the pointer. I'm taking a very different approach, but it
> will certainly be useful to have two independent and parallel
> implementations to run against each other.
Well, I'll try and dig out the one I wrote at STL too, if regexes haven't
ch
Simon Cozens wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Simon Cozens) writes:
Seriously, someone on IRC the other day was claiming that they already
had a P6RE-in-P5 implementation, and did show me some code, but I've
forgotten where it lives or their real name.
ttp://www.liacs.nl/~mavduin/P6P5_0.00_01.tar.gz
Th
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Simon Cozens) writes:
> Seriously, someone on IRC the other day was claiming that they already
> had a P6RE-in-P5 implementation, and did show me some code, but I've
> forgotten where it lives or their real name.
ttp://www.liacs.nl/~mavduin/P6P5_0.00_01.tar.gz
--
IBM:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damian Conway) writes:
> Just wait till you see P::RD's successor: Perl6::Rules ;-)
I was waiting for its successor, Parse::FastDescent. ;)
Seriously, someone on IRC the other day was claiming that they already
had a P6RE-in-P5 implementation, and did show me some code, but I'v
Brent Dax wrote:
First of all, Larry, do you have *any* idea how difficult you're making
my life? :^) This stuff is damn hard to implement--I'm at 450 lines
and counting, and I haven't even started the semantic analysis stuff,
let alone *tested* anything. At least I have Filter::Simple's
FILTER
First of all, Larry, do you have *any* idea how difficult you're making
my life? :^) This stuff is damn hard to implement--I'm at 450 lines
and counting, and I haven't even started the semantic analysis stuff,
let alone *tested* anything. At least I have Filter::Simple's
FILTER_ONLY and P::RD to
18 matches
Mail list logo
