On Wed, 13 Jul 2005, Ingo Blechschmidt wrote:
no, if I understood Larry correctly, you can of course write a nice
grammar-modifying module, but other modules you use() still use
Perl 6's standard grammar. E.g.:
Ah, then of course I would have never expected things to be different at
all.
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 09:19:29AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
: Within perl 5, there is an extremely easy way to write that, namely
: coderef in @INC that provides line-based filtering:
:
: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Acme-use-strict-with-pride/pride.pm
:
: Are we to discontinue use of
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, Larry Wall wrote:
Good, I'd forgotten about that. Which means that it's even harder
for someone to compile a module in a strange dialect, since they'd
essentially have to write their own version of use that forces
recompilation (reuse, if you will). And the harder we make
Hi,
Michele Dondi wrote:
Good, I'd forgotten about that. Which means that it's even harder
for someone to compile a module in a strange dialect, since they'd
essentially have to write their own version of use that forces
recompilation (reuse, if you will). And the harder we make it to
On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 05:10:14PM +0200, Michele Dondi wrote:
: On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, Larry Wall wrote:
:
: Good, I'd forgotten about that. Which means that it's even harder
: for someone to compile a module in a strange dialect, since they'd
: essentially have to write their own version of use
On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 05:48:47PM +0200, Ingo Blechschmidt wrote:
: If you wanted the compiler to parse SomeOtherModule.pm using Ruby's
: grammar, you'd have to write:
:
: use Grammar::Ruby;
: reuse SomeOtherModule
You'd also have to write reuse, because we're not going to write it
for
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 02:10:06PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
Good, I'd forgotten about that. Which means that it's even harder
for someone to compile a module in a strange dialect, since they'd
essentially have to write their own version of use that forces
recompilation (reuse, if you will).
On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 03:58:45PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
It should take a little more effort to mess with the minds of
unsuspecting modules, so maybe the standard syntax is cloned out of
*STANDARD_PERL_6 or some such scary package name. It's the default for
starting all require-like Perl 6
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 05:27:48PM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
: On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 03:58:45PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: It should take a little more effort to mess with the minds of
: unsuspecting modules, so maybe the standard syntax is cloned out of
: *STANDARD_PERL_6 or some such
In Pugs's ext/Set/lib/Set.pm, there are a number of user-defined
infix operators. To avoid unicode in mails, I'll use a hypothetical
infix:=== as the operator name.
Consider the sub case:
class Set;
sub infix:=== (Set $x, Set $y) { ... }
Is it correct that this line:
Set.new ===
On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 11:34:23PM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
: In Pugs's ext/Set/lib/Set.pm, there are a number of user-defined
: infix operators. To avoid unicode in mails, I'll use a hypothetical
: infix:=== as the operator name.
We've intentionally been using Unicode in this mailing list on
11 matches
Mail list logo
