On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 08:40:26AM -0700, Austin Hastings wrote: : You're both right.
Well, actually, I think Damian misspoke slightly. I only aim for 95% accuracy in the Apocalypses (or I'd never get them done). So I think it's pretty spectacular if Damian gets to 99.44% accuracy in the Exegeses. : Notice that "request" does not have an "is parsed" tag. So the default : behavior for macro calls is to use the parsing syntax of subroutines : (which makes a lot of sense). : : Thus, the call to result "looks like a subroutine call" (because that's : the default way to invoke a macro) but is recognized, after parsing, as : a macro (because that's how it's implemented -- parse a rule, follow : the results). I suspect a macro is always recognized the moment its name is parsed, whether or not there is an "is parsed". The trait merely overrides the default parse of the macro. : What's unclear to me is the behavior as specified -- Ex6 calls for the : C<is parsed> syntax to specify the argument parsing. I had thought that : an infix or postfix macro would be possible because the macro would : have access to the parser internals. How to do that is missing. It is possible, but an infix or postfix macro may only take a standard expression on the left, since that part has already been parsed. The macro could give that expression non-standard semantics, however. And an infix operator can specify an "is parsed" for its right argument. In fact, ??:: could be implemented as an infix:?? macro that does a special parse looking for a subsequent :: token. Larry
