On 11/22/05, Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> :syntax
> :syntax
> :syntax
> :syntax
> :syntax
> :syntax
Aren't we providing an interface to define your own regex modifiers?
All of these can easily be mapped into Perl 6 patterns, so...
Modules welcome! ;-)
Larry wrote:
> But the language in the following lexical scope is a constant, so what can
> :syntax($foo) possibly mean? [Wait, this is Damian I'm talking to.]
> Nevermind, don't answer that...
Too late! ;-)
Regex syntaxes already are a twisty maze of variations, mostly alike. I
can easily env
y have, from A5, \x[0a;0d], so you can supposedly say
: > : > "\x[123a;123b;123c]"
: > :
: > : Hmm, I hadn't caught that particular syntax in A05. AFAIK it's not
: > : in S05, so I should probably add it, or whatever syntax we end up
: > : adopting.
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 09:02:57AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 10:27:17AM -0600, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> : On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 06:32:17PM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
> : > We already have, from A5, \x[0a;0d], so you can supposedly say
> : >
On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 10:30:20AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 09:46:59AM -0800, Dave Whipp wrote:
> : Larry Wall wrote:
> :
> : >And there aren't that many regexish languages anyway. So I think :syntax
> : >is relatively useless except for documentation, and in practice pe
On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 09:46:59AM -0800, Dave Whipp wrote:
: Larry Wall wrote:
:
: >And there aren't that many regexish languages anyway. So I think :syntax
: >is relatively useless except for documentation, and in practice people
: >will almost always omit it, which makes it even less useful, a
Larry Wall wrote:
And there aren't that many regexish languages anyway. So I think :syntax
is relatively useless except for documentation, and in practice people
will almost always omit it, which makes it even less useful, and pretty
nearly kicks it over into the category of multiplied entities
On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 08:19:04PM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
: >And perhaps we'd want a general form for specifying other
: >pattern syntaxes; i.e., :perl5 and :glob are shortcuts for
: >:syntax('perl5') and :syntax('glob') or something like that.
:
: Agreed.
But the language in the following
Patrick wrote:
Since we already have :perl5, I'd think that we'd want globbing
to be something like
rule jpeg :i :glob /*.jp{e,}g/
or, for something intra-rule-ish:
m :w / mv (:glob *.c)+ /
Here! Here!
And perhaps we'd want a general form for specifying other
pattern syntaxes; i
On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 07:52:24AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
>
> I think we'll leave both _ and \_ meaning the same thing, just to avoid
> that confusion path [...]
Yay!
> : Whatever shortcuts we introduce, I'll be happy if we can just
> : rule that backslash+space (i.e., "\ ") is a literal space
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 11:25:20AM -0600, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
: On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 09:02:57AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
: > : There's also , unless someone redefines the subrule.
: >
: > But you can't use in a character class. Well, that is, unless
: > you write it:
: >
: > <+[ a
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 09:02:57AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
> : There's also , unless someone redefines the subrule.
>
> But you can't use in a character class. Well, that is, unless
> you write it:
>
> <+[ a..z ]+>
>
> or some such. Maybe that's good enough.
Er, that's now <+[ a..z ]+s
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 09:02:57AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
: But I'd like to reserve < > for delimiting what is returned by $<>,
: the string officially matched:
:
: "foo bar baz" ~~ /:w foo < \w+ > baz/
: say $/; # foo bar baz
: say $<>; # bar
Though it occurs to me that there's
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 05:49:59PM +0100, Ruud H.G. van Tol wrote:
: Larry Wall:
: > Juerd:
: >> Ruud:
:
: >>> Maybe
: >>> "\x{123a 123b 123c}"
: >>> is a nice alternative of
: >>> "\x{123a} \x{123b} \x{123c}".
: &g
On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 10:27:17AM -0600, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
: On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 06:32:17PM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
: > On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 01:26:21AM +0100, Juerd wrote:
: > : Ruud H.G. van Tol skribis 2005-11-20 1:19 (+0100):
: > : > Maybe
: > : >
Larry Wall:
> Juerd:
>> Ruud:
>>> Maybe
>>> "\x{123a 123b 123c}"
>>> is a nice alternative of
>>> "\x{123a} \x{123b} \x{123c}".
>>
>> Hmm, very cute and friendly! Can we keep it, please? Please?
Thanks for th
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 03:23:35PM +0100, TSa wrote:
> Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> >There's also , unless someone redefines the subrule.
> >And in the general case that's a slightly more expensive mechanism
> >to get a space (it involves at least a subrule lookup). Perhaps
> >we could also crea
HaloO,
Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
There's also , unless someone redefines the subrule.
And in the general case that's a slightly more expensive mechanism
to get a space (it involves at least a subrule lookup). Perhaps
we could also create a visible meta sequence for it, in the same
way that
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 06:32:17PM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 01:26:21AM +0100, Juerd wrote:
> : Ruud H.G. van Tol skribis 2005-11-20 1:19 (+0100):
> : > Maybe
> : > "\x{123a 123b 123c}"
> : > is a nice alternative of
> : >
On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 01:26:21AM +0100, Juerd wrote:
: Ruud H.G. van Tol skribis 2005-11-20 1:19 (+0100):
: > Maybe
: > "\x{123a 123b 123c}"
: > is a nice alternative of
: > "\x{123a} \x{123b} \x{123c}".
:
: Hmm, very cute and friendly! Can we keep
Ruud H.G. van Tol skribis 2005-11-20 1:19 (+0100):
> Maybe
> "\x{123a 123b 123c}"
> is a nice alternative of
> "\x{123a} \x{123b} \x{123c}".
Hmm, very cute and friendly! Can we keep it, please? Please?
Juerd
--
http://convolution.nl/maak_juerd
Maybe
"\x{123a 123b 123c}"
is a nice alternative of
"\x{123a} \x{123b} \x{123c}".
--
Grtz, Ruud
22 matches
Mail list logo
