----- Original Message -----
From: Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wednesday, September 8, 2004 1:56 pm
Subject: Re: Current state?
> At 11:21 AM -0600 9/8/04, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> >On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 09:56:12AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> >> On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 07:33:45AM -0600, Patrick R. Michaud
> wrote:>> : We're in the beginning stages of building a basic perl
> 6 grammar engine
> >> : (i.e., probably without p6 closures) that compiles to parrot
> and handles
> >> : basic optimizations.
> >>
> >> I wonder whether, in the absence of closures, we'll have to
> have some
> >> similar way to embed syntax-tree building code (PIR?) as
> actions in
> >> the grammar.
> >
> >We may indeed need this.
>
> Or we could just get closures working...
To get closure assertions working, you need
something that compiles the code in the
closure assertion, and so there is a bit of a
bootstrapping problem. (:
Maybe some sort of compromise/hack solution would
work, where closure assertions would be allowed but
only contain simple assignments:
rule hack {
(\d)(<[a-z]>)\2
<{ $0 = $1 }>
}
