Bart Lateur wrote:
>
> On 06 Sep 2000 18:04:18 -0700, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
>
> >I think the -1 indexing for "end of array" came from there. Or at
> >least, it was in Perl long before it was in Python, and it was in Icon
> >before it was in Perl, so I had always presumed Larry had seen Icon
- Original Message -
From: "Jonathan Scott Duff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: XML/HTML-specific ?< and ?> operators? (was Re: RFC 145
(alternate approach))
> How about qy() for Quote Yacc :-) This stuff is starting to look
> more and more like we're trying to fold lex and yacc int
> I think what is needed is something along the line of :
Joe McMahon and I are working on something along these lines.
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 03:42:01PM -0400, Eric Roode wrote:
> Richard Proctor wrote:
> >
> >I think what is needed is something along the line of :
> >
> > $re = qz{ '(' \$re ')'
> >| \$re \$re
> >| [^()]+
> > };
> >
> >Where qz is
> What would be useful, would be to leave REs the hell alone; they're
> great as-is, and are only getting hairier and hairier.
Amen!
> What would be useful, would be to create a new non-regular
> pattern-matching/parsing "language" within Perl, that combines
> the best of Perl
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 08:20:42PM +0100, Richard Proctor wrote:
> I think what is needed is something along the line of :
>
>$re = qz{ '(' \$re ')'
> | \$re \$re
> | [^()]+
>};
>
> Where qz is some hypothetical new quoting s
Richard Proctor wrote:
>
>I think what is needed is something along the line of :
>
> $re = qz{ '(' \$re ')'
>| \$re \$re
>| [^()]+
> };
>
>Where qz is some hypothetical new quoting syntax
Well, we currently have qr{}, and ??{} do
On Wed 06 Sep, Mark-Jason Dominus wrote:
>
> I've been thinking the same thing. It seems to me that the attempts to
> shoehorn parsers into regex syntax have either been unsuccessful
> (yielding an underpowered extension) or illegible or both.
>
>SNOBOL:
> parenstring = '(' *parenstrin
The phrase "die a horrible death" clearly reads that something was
a bletcherous botch--a terribly brain-damaged mistake, if you
would--and so must necessarily be expurgated from the language.
For example, when Larry said, "...this does not mean that some of
us should not want, in a rather dispas
Mark-Jason Dominus wrote:
>
> Larry said:
>
> # Well, the fact is, I've been thinking about possible ways to get rid
> # of =~ for some time now, so I certainly don't mind brainstorming in
> # this direction.
>
> That is in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> which is archived at
>
> ht
> > 2. Many people - including Larry - have voiced their desire
> > to see =~ die a horrible death
>
> Please provide a look-up-able reference to Larry's saying that he
> wanted to =~ to die horrible death.
Larry said:
# Well, the fact is, I've been thinking about possible ways to get
From: Tom Christiansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2000 11:20 AM
> Which can of course be written in an immeasuably more legible fashion
> using current Perl, a little-known language:
>
> ($name) = split /\s+/, $name;
> $string = quotemeta($string);
> @array =
> 2. Many people - including Larry - have voiced their desire
> to see =~ die a horrible death
Please provide a look-up-able reference to Larry's saying that he
wanted to =~ to die horrible death. That's very strongly worded
for him. Are you sure this tale hasn't merely grown in the tell
Tom Christiansen wrote:
>
> carefully consider whether any scant benefit these cutesinesses
> might provide can be truly worth further exacerbating the rampant
> inscrutability problems (stemming mainly from punctuation in lieu
> of alphabetics and from magically implicit targets, arguments, and
>Can be rewritten as the shorter and more readable:
> ($name) =~ split /\s+/;
> $string =~ quotemeta;
> @array =~ reverse;
> @vals =~ sort { $a <=> $b };
> $string =~ s/\s+/SPACE/;# looks familiar
> $string =~ m/\w+/; # this too
> @strs =~ m/\w+/;
> But you said "lists" up there and that sparked an idea in me ... What
> does
>
> @a =~ /pattern/;
>
> currently do? AFAICT, nothing useful.
> Also, it'd be nice if
>
> @a =~ s/foo/bar/g;
>
> did something similar.
See RFC 170, "Generalize =~ to a special-purpose assignmen
>But you said "lists" up there and that sparked an idea in me ... What
>does
> @a =~ /pattern/;
>currently do? AFAICT, nothing useful. But it could be a syntactic
>shorcut for a pattern matching grep()
That changes semantics in places you might not expect. What does
fn() =~ /pa
On Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 03:37:55PM -0400, David Corbin wrote:
> Question: Is there value in extending the regex/pattern engine to
> support matching patterns in a list of foobars?
>
> I can see this taking two forms (beyond the strings we have today).
>
> One is matching number patterns (fibonac
On 06 Sep 2000 18:04:18 -0700, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
>I think the -1 indexing for "end of array" came from there. Or at
>least, it was in Perl long before it was in Python, and it was in Icon
>before it was in Perl, so I had always presumed Larry had seen Icon.
>Larry?
Do not assume that th
19 matches
Mail list logo
