On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 11:18:34AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 08:24:20PM -0800, Ashley Winters wrote:
: I'm still going to prefer using :=, simply as a good programming
: practice. My mind sees a big difference between building a parse-tree
: object and just grepping for
On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 10:52:54AM +, Matthew Walton wrote:
Of course, it then begs the question about
word ws $foo ws number
if we're thinking of parallels with qw//-like constructs, which I
certainly am. I'm not quite sure what that would do, as it collides
slightly with the
On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 08:24:20PM -0800, Ashley Winters wrote:
I was working on the (possibly misguided) assumption that there's a
cost to capturing, and that perhaps agressive capturing isn't worth
having on in a one-liner. Some deep part of my mind remembers $`
being bad, I think. If
On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 08:24:20PM -0800, Ashley Winters wrote:
: I'm still going to prefer using :=, simply as a good programming
: practice. My mind sees a big difference between building a parse-tree
: object and just grepping for some word I want in a string. Within a
: rule{} block, there is
On Tue, Dec 07, 2004 at 10:36:53PM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
: But somehow I expect that when someone writes (foo) they probably
: usually meant («foo»).
If we're going to stick with the notion that foo captures and something
else doesn't, I'm beginning to think that the other thing isn't «foo»
Larry Wall wrote:
Another problem we've run into is naming if there are multiple assertions
of the same name. If the capture name is just the alpha part of the
assertion, then we could allow an optional number, and still recognize
it as a ws:
ws1 ws2 ws3
Except I can well imagine people
On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 08:19:17AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
And people would have to get used to seeing ? as non-capturing assertions:
?before ...
?after ...
?ws
?sp
?null
This has a rather Ruby-esque I am a boolean feeling to it. I think
I like it. It's pretty easy
Larry Wall writes:
If we're going to stick with the notion that foo captures and
something else doesn't, I'm beginning to think that the other thing
isn't foo for a couple of reasons.
I just sat down to say the exact same thing. I'm glad you beat me to
it.
And people would have to get used
On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 08:19:17 -0800, Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
/ $bar := [ (?ident) = (\N+) ]* /
You know, to be honest I don't know that I want rules in one-liners to
capture by default. I certainly want them to capture in rules, though.
And people would have to get used to seeing
Ashley Winters writes:
I'm thinking capturing rules should be default in rules, where they're
downright useful. Your hour/minute/second comment brings up parsing
ISO time:
grammar ISO8601::DateTime {
rule year { \d4 }
rule month { \d2 }
rule day { \d2 }
rule hour { \d2 }
On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 11:09:30AM -0700, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
: On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 08:19:17AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
: And people would have to get used to seeing ? as non-capturing assertions:
: ?before ...
: ?after ...
: ?ws
: ?sp
: ?null
: This has a
On Tue, Dec 07, 2004 at 12:11:18PM -0700, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
: I'm reviewing the updated S05 (2 Dec 2004) and ran across this
: in the Hypothetical Variables section:
:
: # Pairs of repeated captures can be bound to hashes:
:
: / %options := [ (ident) = (\N+) ]* /
:
:
12 matches
Mail list logo
