Rod Adams writes:
> Since the line between rules and subs is already blurring significantly,
> I want to blur it a little more. I want to write rules which can take
> parameters.
No no no! That's too powerful.
Wow, skimming through both S5 and A5 and I see no mention of such a
thing. I know we've had it planned for quite a while.
> Consider that I am parsing HTML (a very frequent occurrence), and wish
> to make a Rule that matches a balanced tag from open to close. I want
> to use the same code many different times, but for different tags. So I
> really want to say something like:
>
> rule baltag (Rule|Str $<tag>) {
> \< $<tag> \s* $<options> := (.*?) \>
> $<body> := (.*?)
> \</ $<tag> \>
> }
Replace $<tag> with $tag and you're all set. We may allow putting
$<tag> directly in the parameter list for inclusion in the parse tree.
Luke
