On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Ken Fox wrote: : Apoc 5 has "It is an error to use : on any atom that does no : backtracking." Code blocks don't backtrack (at least that's what : I understood Damian to say).
Code blocks don't backtrack *by default*. But you can do anything in a closure. : Are zero width atoms treated specially? Code blocks are zero width *by default*. But you can do anything in a closure. : And can you give me an example of a continuation game? That sounds : sort of like my original question. Nope. I don't understand continuations. :-) : Great news about backtracking into sub-rules. Perl 6 is going to : be a lovely system to work with. I think it's going to suffer a bit : from the same declarative-face vs procedural-heart** that Prolog : does, but it hits the "little language" target perfectly. There's a famous book called "Golf is Not a Game of Perfect". : ** Prolog uses a cut (!) operator to control backtracking just like : Perl 6. A big problem (at least for me...) is learning when ! just : makes things run faster vs. when ! gives me the wrong answer. Maybe : I just haven't used Prolog enough to get my brain wrapped around it. The purists would say that the cut operator is always the wrong answer even when it gives the right answer. I am not a purist. In case you hadn't noticed... Larry
