Re: RFC 111 (v3) Here Docs Terminators (Was Whitespace and Here Docs)

On Thu, Sep 14, 2000 at 03:36:10PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote: > See, this is just too inflexible. The main complaint that I've heard has > been "You can't have leading or trailing whitespace around your > terminator". This is a very common error made by everyone, and *this* is > where Perl should

Re: RFC 111 (v3) Here Docs Terminators (Was Whitespace and Here Docs)

ed one char. > > This is on the left margin. > > SECOND_HERE_DOC > > RFC 111 specifically disallows statements after the terminator > because it is too confusing. I would say that the same logic should apply > to the start of the here doc; I'm not sure, just from looking at it

Re: Drop here docs altogether? (was Re: RFC 111 (v3) Here Docs Terminators (Was Whitespace and Here Docs))

Michael G Schwern wrote: > > No, it still has all the problems of any other regex-based solution. > If you shift the code right or left, it breaks (due to the \s{8}) and > you're back to counting whitespace again. Y'know, I pointed out before why I think this is a superfluous issue. You have to

Re: Drop here docs altogether? (was Re: RFC 111 (v3) Here Docs Terminators (Was Whitespace and Here Docs))

Glenn Linderman wrote: > I think $mesg wins up with the value of "1" the way you've coded it. Sorry, I missed the placement of the (). $mesg is fine. -- Glenn = There are two kinds of people, those who finish what they start, and so on... -- Robert Byrne __

Re: Drop here docs altogether? (was Re: RFC 111 (v3) Here Docs Terminators (Was Whitespace and Here Docs))

On Thu, Sep 14, 2000 at 10:52:16AM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote: > Before you scream "Bloody murder", please read on... I'll wait patiently for the end... >if( $is_fitting && $is_just ) { > die subst /\s{8}(.*?\n)/$1/g, qq/ > The old lie >Dulce et decorum est

Re: Drop here docs altogether? (was Re: RFC 111 (v3) Here Docs Terminators (Was Whitespace and Here Docs))

Nathan Wiger wrote: > Solves problem #1, indented terminator, except that it adds two newlines > (more later). I never found anything later about these extra newlines... so if this idea has merit, it needs to be finished. > However, it leaves 2 and 3. Let's try adding in a regexp: > >if( $i

Re: RFC 111 (v3) Here Docs Terminators (Was Whitespace and Here Docs)

On Thu, Sep 14, 2000 at 11:49:18AM -0700, Glenn Linderman wrote: > I'm all for solving problems, and this message attempts to specify 3 > problems, but it needs more specification. You describe three > problems, but it is not clear what the problems are Since we've been charging back and forth o

RFC 111

This whole debate has got silly. RFC 111 V1 covered both the whitespace on the terminator and the indenting - there was a lot of debate that this was two things - more were in favour of the terminator and there was more debate on the indenting. Therefore I split this into two RFCs leaving

Re: Drop here docs altogether? (was Re: RFC 111 (v3) Here Docs Terminators (Was Whitespace and Here Docs))

On Thu, 14 Sep 2000 10:52:16 -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote: >We already have q//, qq//, and qx// which duplicate their >functions far more flexibly. Question: Do we really need here docs? With your above functions, you always need to be able to escape the string end delimiter. Therefore, you will al

Re: RFC 111 (v3) Here Docs Terminators (Was Whitespace and Here Docs)

e-doc terminator line, so let's assume there is, and that problem #5 should be solved. It is very apparent that you are using white space before the here-doc terminator, which is not part of the here-doc terminator, so you want problem #4 to be solved. And you want to vary the indentation

Re: RFC 111 (v3) Here Docs Terminators (Was Whitespace and Here Docs)

Nathan Wiger wrote: > >I also suggest that no whitespace stripping/appending/etc/etc be done at >all. If I write: [...deletia...] >But this shouldn't be implicit in the language. That's a good argument for having a separate operator for these "enhanced here docs", say <<<, rather than chucking th

Re: RFC 111 (v3) Here Docs Terminators (Was Whitespace and Here Docs)

Eric Roode wrote: > > I suggest that there be NO tab/space conversion. I also suggest that no whitespace stripping/appending/etc/etc be done at all. If I write: if ( $its_all_good ) { print <

Re: RFC 111 (v3) Here Docs Terminators (Was Whitespace and Here Docs)

Richard Proctor made some excellent comments, and asked: >When measuring whitespace how does the system treat tabs? (be realistic >and dont FLAME) I suggest that there be NO tab/space conversion. Not 8 columns, not 4 columns, nothing. If the here doc terminator has four tabs preceding it, then f

Re: Drop here docs altogether? (was Re: RFC 111 (v3) Here Docs Terminators (Was Whitespace and Here Docs))

Nathan Wiger wrote: >Actually, to me this thread underscores how broken here docs are >themselves. We already have q//, qq//, and qx// which duplicate their >functions far more flexibly. Question: Do we really need here docs? Yes. Try generating lots of HTML, Javascript, Postscript, or other lan

Re: RFC 111 (v3) Here Docs Terminators (Was Whitespace and Here Docs)

This whole debate has got silly. RFC 111 V1 covered both the whitespace on the terminator and the indenting - there was a lot of debate that this was two things - more were in favour of the terminator and there was more debate on the indenting. Therefore I split this into two RFCs leaving

Re: Drop here docs altogether? (was Re: RFC 111 (v3) Here Docs Terminators (Was Whitespace and Here Docs))

At 10:52 AM 9/14/00 -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote: >Actually, to me this thread underscores how broken here docs are >themselves. We already have q//, qq//, and qx// which duplicate their >functions far more flexibly. Question: Do we really need here docs? I have thought this before, but I think the

Drop here docs altogether? (was Re: RFC 111 (v3) Here Docs Terminators (Was Whitespace and Here Docs))

> Show me where this fails and I'll shut up about it. Actually, to me this thread underscores how broken here docs are themselves. We already have q//, qq//, and qx// which duplicate their functions far more flexibly. Question: Do we really need here docs? Before you scream "Bloody murder", pleas

Re: RFC 111 (v3) Here Docs Terminators (Was Whitespace and HereDocs)

; SECOND_HERE_DOC; > This is on the left margin. > This is indented one char. > FIRST_HERE_DOC > This is indented one char. > This is on the left margin. > SECOND_HERE_DOC RFC 111 specifically disallows statements after the terminator beca

Re: RFC 111 (v3) Here Docs Terminators (Was Whitespace and Here Docs)

In Michael Schwerns prototype, expansion to treat both semicolons and comments at the end tag is possible by changing /^(\s*)$curr_tag\s*$/ to /^(\s*)$curr_tag\s*(;\s*)?(#.*)?$/ Richard

Re: RFC 111 (v3) Here Docs Terminators (Was Whitespace and Here Docs)

Ariel Scolnicov wrote: >1. It requires the perl parser know about indentation. Of course we > all know that tabs are 8 characters wide (I myself make a point of > bludgeoning anyone who says otherwise), but do we really want to > open this can of worms? Not so fast with those 8-column tabs

Re: RFC 111 (v3) Here Docs Terminators (Was Whitespace and Here Docs)

Glenn Linderman wrote: >Amen to the below. So can we have an RFC 111 (v4) that gets rid of allowing >stuff after the terminator? Even the ";" afterward seems useless... the ";" >should be at the end of the statement, not the end of the here doc. The only >improv

Re: RFC 111 (v3) Here Docs Terminators (Was Whitespace and Here Docs)

Michael, I just noticed your post (I am at work). This is begining to get there (maybe I should not have split the original 111). In the prototype you only cover use of " quotes. if( ($pre_code, $quote_type, $curr_tag, $post_code) = $_ =~ m/(.*)\<\<(")(\w+)"(.*)/ ) It needs to match (.*)<<(

Re: RFC 111 (v3) Here Docs Terminators (Was Whitespace and Here Docs)

I've implemented a prototype of the indented here-doc tag I'm proposing. http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/src/RFC-Prototype-0.02.tar.gz Its RFC::Prototype::111, which is probably the wrong number. I'll have to add < be expanded. 2. POD end tags may now be followed by trailing whitespace --

Re: RFC 111 (v3) Here Docs Terminators (Was Whitespace and Here Docs)

Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [...] > I propose that this work out to > > "The old lie\n Dulce et decorum est\n Pro patria mori.\n" > > and always work out to that, no matter how far left or right the > expression be indented. > >{ { { { { > if(

Re: RFC 111 (v3) Here Docs Terminators (Was Whitespace and Here Docs)

On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 11:34:20PM -0700, Glenn Linderman wrote: > The rest is handled adequately and consistently today, and Tom's > dequote is adequate to eliminate leading white space... especially > among people who cannot agree that a tab in a file means "mod 8" > (which it does). Damnit, I'

Re: RFC 111 (v3) Here Docs Terminators (Was Whitespace and Here Docs)

Amen to the below. So can we have an RFC 111 (v4) that gets rid of allowing stuff after the terminator? Even the ";" afterward seems useless... the ";" should be at the end of the statement, not the end of the here doc. The only improvement to here docs I see in this RFC is

Re: RFC 111 (v3) Here Docs Terminators (Was Whitespace and Here Docs)

On 4 Sep 2000 21:32:00 -, Perl6 RFC Librarian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This and other RFCs are available on the web at > http://dev.perl.org/rfc/ > > =head1TITLE > > Here Docs Terminators (Was Whitespace and Here Docs) [...] > =head1 IMPLENTATION Intentional? It's either 'IMPL

Re: RFC 111 (v3) Here Docs Terminators (Was Whitespace and Here Docs)

Michael G Schwern wrote: > > >print < > This still leaves the problem of having to count whitespace and having > to change your regex if you reindent your code. In effect, it causes > whitespace to become significant. Bleh. How is this different from having to count the number of spaces y

Re: RFC 111 (v3) Here Docs Terminators (Was Whitespace and Here Docs)

>This still leaves the problem of having to count whitespace and having >to change your regex if you reindent your code. In effect, it causes >whitespace to become significant. Bleh. It's much better to use the Cookbook method: it stands out better. Please observe. --tom

Re: RFC 111 (v3) Here Docs Terminators (Was Whitespace and Here Docs)

On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 05:36:32PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote: > Actually, the two started merged. :-) They were split up after there > were too many people for RFC 111 but against RFC 162. Personally, I'd > rather see the recipe method of: > >print < > I can't

Re: RFC 111 (v3) Here Docs Terminators (Was Whitespace and Here Docs)

Michael G Schwern wrote: > > The RFC proposes a <<< operator which would strip whitespace off the > front of the here-doc. Problem is preserving indentation. We can > merge the two. Actually, the two started merged. :-) They were split up after there were too many p

Re: RFC 111 (v3) Here Docs Terminators (Was Whitespace and Here Docs)

On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 09:32:00PM -, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote: > Perl6 should ignore any whitespace before the terminator of a heredoc on any > line. Good. I don't see anything wrong with this. ***BRAIN STORM!*** RFC 162 (http://dev.perl.org/rfc/162.html) wanted to allow indented here-d

Re: RFC 111 (v3) Here Docs Terminators (Was Whitespace and Here Docs)

I think it should be made explicit what happens if the here doc terminator itself contains comment characters or semicolons. This is my suggestion: The here doc terminator must match as a string (that is, C should match the line, where $term is the desired terminator. Otherwise the behaviour o

RFC 111 (v3) Here Docs Terminators (Was Whitespace and Here Docs)

This and other RFCs are available on the web at http://dev.perl.org/rfc/ =head1 TITLE Here Docs Terminators (Was Whitespace and Here Docs) =head1 VERSION Maintainer: Richard Proctor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 16 Aug 2000 Last Modified: 2 Sep 2000 Mailing List:

Re: RFC 111 (v2) Here Docs Terminators (Was Whitespace and Here Docs)

the semicolon after the hereis terminator thing might only work if the beginning of the hereis was the last thing on the line it appears on, that way there's no ambiguity $Goodone = < > I like it... I think I will add this to the next version. > > Richard > > -- > > [EMAIL PROTECTE

Re: RFC 111 (v2) Here Docs Terminators (Was Whitespace and HereDocs)

On 27 Aug 2000, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote: Don't know if anyone's picked this up or not, but I think it was in the first version, too. > =head1 ABSTRACT > > With a here doc print < text of the here doc, is processed verbatum. This results in the terminator > sticking out in the body of the doc

Re: RFC 111 (v2) Here Docs Terminators (Was Whitespace and Here Docs)

>> Next you'll propose that >> >> print <> blah >> EOL; print "OK!\n"; >> >> should work too, and print "OK!\n" as well. >> >Yes why not, though it might be bad style. Because it gains you nothing, and loses much. --tom

Re: RFC 111 (v2) Here Docs Terminators (Was Whitespace and Here Docs)

On Mon 28 Aug, Bart Lateur wrote: > On Mon, 28 Aug 2000 10:38:42 -0400 (EDT), Eric Roode wrote: > > >People may throw rocks at me for this, but I'd like to suggest that > >not only is a comment allowed on the terminator line, but a semicolon > >also be allowed. Vis: > > > >print < >EOL;

Re: RFC 111 (v2) Here Docs Terminators (Was Whitespace and Here Docs)

On Mon 28 Aug, Eric Roode wrote: > Richard Proctor proposed: > > > > All of these should work: > > > > print < >EOL > > print << EOL; > > EOL > > print < >EOL # this is the end of the here doc > > People may throw rocks at me for this, but I'd like to suggest that

Re: RFC 111 (v2) Here Docs Terminators (Was Whitespace and Here Docs)

>Bart Lateur wrote: >> >> Next you'll propose that >> >> print <> blah >> EOL; print "OK!\n"; >> >> should work too, and print "OK!\n" as well. >Why not?! This seems like a good thing. ;, #, or \n are all valid >end-of-lines for here string delimiters. Sounds easy enough

Re: RFC 111 (v2) Here Docs Terminators (Was Whitespace and Here Docs)

On Mon, 28 Aug 2000 08:46:25 -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote: >> OTOH, what about this... >> >> print <> blah >> EOL; >> >> which makes this a full blown statement (note the missing semicolon in >> the first line)... > >No it doesn't! > >perl -e ' > print < Hello world! >E

Re: RFC 111 (v2) Here Docs Terminators (Was Whitespace and Here Docs)

Bart Lateur wrote: > > Next you'll propose that > > print < blah > EOL; print "OK!\n"; > > should work too, and print "OK!\n" as well. Why not?! This seems like a good thing. ;, #, or \n are all valid end-of-lines for here string delimiters. Sounds easy enough, and consi

Re: RFC 111 (v2) Here Docs Terminators (Was Whitespace and Here Docs)

On Mon, 28 Aug 2000 10:38:42 -0400 (EDT), Eric Roode wrote: >People may throw rocks at me for this, but I'd like to suggest that >not only is a comment allowed on the terminator line, but a semicolon >also be allowed. Vis: > >print

Re: RFC 111 (v2) Here Docs Terminators (Was Whitespace and Here Docs)

Richard Proctor proposed: > > All of these should work: > > print print << EOL; > EOL > print

Re: RFC 111 (v2) Here Docs Terminators (Was Whitespace and Here Docs)

Bart Lateur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 27 Aug 2000 19:23:51 -, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote: > > >Further it should ignore any whitespace (and comments) that follow the > >terminator. > > > All of these should work: > > > print < >EOL # this is the end of the here doc > >

Re: RFC 111 (v2) Here Docs Terminators (Was Whitespace and Here Docs)

On 27 Aug 2000 19:23:51 -, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote: >Further it should ignore any whitespace (and comments) that follow the >terminator. > All of these should work: > print

RFC 111 (v2) Here Docs Terminators (Was Whitespace and Here Docs)

This and other RFCs are available on the web at http://dev.perl.org/rfc/ =head1 TITLE Here Docs Terminators (Was Whitespace and Here Docs) =head1 VERSION Maintainer: Richard Proctor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 16 Aug 2000 Last Modified: 27 Aug 2000 Mailing List

Re: RFC 111 (v1) Whitespace and Here Docs

Reply on laptop in wilderness (no network) holydays me void this message by other messages sent in my absence. Ignore if so. On Thu, 17 Aug 2000 08:28:50 -0400 (EDT), Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 15 Aug 2000, Michael Fowler wrote: > > > So what's insufficient about: > > >

Re: RFC 111 (v1) Whitespace and Here Docs

. > All of these should work: > > EOL >EOL > EOL # this is the end of the here doc > > I don't think a special syntax is needed just for this. Make > this the default (so "print < If this makes you nervous, use 'This_is_the

Re: RFC 111 (v1) Whitespace and Here Docs

On Thu, 24 Aug 2000 21:06:30 -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote: > 1. Ignore leading/trailing whitespace in here string terminators. > All of these should work: > >EOL > EOL >EOL # this is the end of the here doc > > I don't think a special syntax is needed just for this. Make > thi

Re: RFC 111 (v1) Whitespace and Here Docs

> I was sorta going under the assumption that <<< would cause leading and > trailing whitespace to be ignored (not stripped) when looking for the > end-of-here-doc indicator. Because whitespace is ignored, I was then > proposing some new syntax for stripping whatever one likes from the contents >

Re: RFC 111 (v1) Whitespace and Here Docs

>Unfortunately the quoting on the terminator following << decides the type >of interpolation; we're missing a way of indicating how to recognize the >terminator other than an exact match. If we say that we want varia

Re: RFC 111 (v1) Whitespace and Here Docs

On Thu, Aug 24, 2000 at 05:24:14PM -0700, Peter Scott wrote: > At 05:41 PM 8/24/00 -0600, Tom Christiansen wrote: > >But you don't need that when you can and possibly should just write this: > > > > print <<"EOF" =~ /^\s*\| ?(.*\n)/g; > > Others may be focussing on th

Re: RFC 111 (v1) Whitespace and Here Docs

On Thu, Aug 24, 2000 at 05:41:00PM -0600, Tom Christiansen wrote: > But you don't need that when you can and possibly should just write this: > > print <<"EOF" =~ /^\s*\| ?(.*\n)/g; > | Attention criminal slacker, we have yet > | to receive payment for our legal services.

Re: RFC 111 (v1) Whitespace and Here Docs

At 05:41 PM 8/24/00 -0600, Tom Christiansen wrote: >But you don't need that when you can and possibly should just write this: > > print <<"EOF" =~ /^\s*\| ?(.*\n)/g; > | Attention criminal slacker, we have yet > | to receive payment for our legal s

Re: RFC 111 (v1) Whitespace and Here Docs

>Basically, it's shorthand for the current syntax: >$message = <<"EOF" =~ s/^\s*\| ?//g; >| Attention criminal slacker, we have yet >| to receive payment for our legal services. >| >| Love and kisses >| >EOF >print $message; >But any i

Re: RFC 111 (v1) Whitespace and Here Docs

On Thu, Aug 24, 2000 at 05:26:36PM -0600, Tom Christiansen wrote: > >I thought this problem would've been neatly solved by my proposed: > > >print <<<"FOO" =~ s/^ {8}//; > >Attention criminal slacker, we have yet > >to receive payment for our legal services. > > >

Re: RFC 111 (v1) Whitespace and Here Docs

>I thought this problem would've been neatly solved by my proposed: >print <<<"FOO" =~ s/^ {8}//; >Attention criminal slacker, we have yet >to receive payment for our legal services. >Love and kisses >FOO The result of substituting the leading 8 bla

Re: RFC 111 (v1) Whitespace and Here Docs

>Today around 4:30pm, Tom Christiansen hammered out this masterpiece: >: print print <<" FOO" =~ /^\s+(.*\n)/gm; >Unless, of course, you want `xx oo' to be indented still, and the blank >remain. That r

Re: RFC 111 (v1) Whitespace and Here Docs

On Thu, Aug 24, 2000 at 06:14:10PM -0400, Michael G Schwern wrote: > Paragraphs. > > sub legal { > print << Attention criminal slacker, we have yet > to receive payment for our legal services. > > Love and kisses > FOO > } > > Obvi

Re: RFC 111 (v1) Whitespace and Here Docs

Today around 4:30pm, Tom Christiansen hammered out this masterpiece: : print <'[EMAIL PROTECTED]',site=> 'http://home.kiski.net/~crt'};print "\n",'.'x(length($sig->{site})+6),"\n"; print map{$_.': '.$sig->{$_}."\n"}sort{$sig->{$a}cmp$sig->{$b}}keys%{$sig}; my $VERSION = '0.01'; #'patche

Re: RFC 111 (v1) Whitespace and Here Docs

At 04:30 PM 8/24/00 -0600, Tom Christiansen wrote: > >I'm coming into this a bit late, so forgive me if this is impossible or > >already dismissed, but what about > > > print < > Attention, dropsied weasel, we are > > launching our team of legal beagles > >

Re: RFC 111 (v1) Whitespace and Here Docs

>I'm coming into this a bit late, so forgive me if this is impossible or >already dismissed, but what about > print < Attention, dropsied weasel, we are > launching our team of legal beagles > straight for your scrofulous crotch. >

Re: RFC 111 (v1) Whitespace and Here Docs

At 06:14 PM 8/24/00 -0400, Michael G Schwern wrote: >Okay, devil's advocate. > >Paragraphs. > > sub legal { > print << Attention criminal slacker, we have yet > to receive payment for our legal services. > > Love and kisses > FOO > }

Re: RFC 111 (v1) Whitespace and Here Docs

Okay, devil's advocate. Paragraphs. sub legal { print <

Re: RFC 111 (v1) Whitespace and Here Docs

On Tue, 15 Aug 2000, Michael Fowler wrote: > So what's insufficient about: > > print <<"EOF"; > Stuff > More stuff > Even more stuff > EOF Others have already mentioned the "have to count the number of spaces" argument. Another one that comes to mind is: assu

Re: RFC 111 (v1) Whitespace and Here Docs

On Wed, 16 Aug 2000, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote: > This will ignore all leading white space on each line until the end terminator > is found. It effectively does s/^\s*// before processing each following line. I don't agree with this, but > It also ignores whitespace (but not the line termi

Re: RFC 111 (v1) Whitespace and Here Docs

On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 08:22:16PM -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote: > > "MF" == Michael Fowler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > MF> So what's insufficient about: > > MF> print <<"EOF"; > MF> Stuff > MF> More stuff > MF> Even more stuff > MF> EOF > > > Counting

Re: RFC 111 (v1) Whitespace and Here Docs

> "MF" == Michael Fowler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: MF> So what's insufficient about: MF> print <<"EOF"; MF> Stuff MF> More stuff MF> Even more stuff MF> EOF Counting spaces, why make the programer work. Are those tabs or spaces? And it doesn't strip t

Re: RFC 111 (v1) Whitespace and Here Docs

On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 03:05:23PM -, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote: > With a here doc print < the text of the here doc, is processed verbatum. This results in Here Docs > that either stick out in the code, or result in unwanted leading whitespace. > There are several FAQs that relate to this pro

Re: RFC 111 (v1) Whitespace and Here Docs

On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 03:05:23PM -, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote: > =head1 ABSTRACT > > With a here doc print < the text of the here doc, is processed verbatum. This results in Here Docs > that either stick out in the code, or result in unwanted leading whitespace. > There are several FAQs t

RFC 111 (v1) Whitespace and Here Docs

This and other RFCs are available on the web at http://dev.perl.org/rfc/ =head1 TITLE Whitespace and Here Docs =head1 VERSION Maintainer: Richard Proctor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 16 Aug 2000 Version: 1 Mailing List: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Number: 111 =he