[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Uri Guttman) writes:
> actually i just had another thought. you don't need any of the $foo :=
> stuff as the match tree will have it all for you.
Yes, but it's nice to be able to access the captured things by
name. Or should I be saying things like
rule raiddev { *
> "SC" == Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
SC> rule comm_eol { ? \n };
>>
>> aren't those 's redundant? the first is overlapping with the one at
>> the beginning of comment.
SC> But only matches if there *is* a comment, and there may not
SC> be, so I want to match opt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Uri Guttman) writes:
> shouldn't that have a inside the blank line?
Or *, yes.
> SC> rule comm_eol { ? \n };
>
> aren't those 's redundant? the first is overlapping with the one at
> the beginning of comment.
But only matches if there *is* a comment, and there may not
> "SC" == Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
SC> raiddev /dev/md0
SC> raid-level 5
SC> option value
SC> option value
SC> ...
SC> device /dev/sde1
SC> raid-disk 0
Well, I've started my Perl 6 programming career already and I've got
stuck. :)
I'm trying to parse a Linux RAID table (/etc/raidtab), which looks a
bit like this:
raiddev /dev/md0
raid-level 5
option value
option value
Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Piers Cawley wrote:
>
>> Happy birthday to me!
>
>
> Congratulations.
>
>> ... by my turning 35 on the 15th
>
>
> 44 on 16th - yes Sept.
Congrats to you too. So, should I start maintaining a birthday
database for the summaries? Probably not.
--
Mike Lambert wrote:
>
> > First, a thank you to whoever it is who is running these test-drive
> > machines (there's no name in the build log). Also, a thanks to Compaq
> > for setting them up.
Yes, many thanks to Compaq.
> Yes, I had noticed that. And that struct me as strange, particularly
T
> First, a thank you to whoever it is who is running these test-drive
> machines (there's no name in the build log). Also, a thanks to Compaq
> for setting them up.
You're welcome. It's basically just a script on my linux box that uploads
a tar file (the servers don't have gzip dammit! ;) to the
Aaron Sherman:
# topicalize: To default to C<$_> in a prototype (thus
# acquiring the caller's current topic).
Well, to topicalize a region of code is actually to specify a different
topic, that is, a different value for $_. For example:
$foo = new X;
$bar = new Y;
I did send a ~200KB patch do Dan (I supposed it to be to big for the list).
It implements the proposed class hierarchy:
default ... implementing almost nothing, throwing exceptions
| |
| scalar ... most of previous default
| |
| perlint, perlnum, ...
Sub
Continuation
It's not
Piers Cawley wrote:
>
> Happy birthday to me!
Congratulations.
> ... by my turning 35 on the 15th
44 on 16th - yes Sept.
and thanks for the kudos,
leo
On Sat, 2002-09-14 at 04:16, Luke Palmer wrote:
> When a bare closure is defined, it behaves the same as a signatureless
> sub. That is, it topicalizes the first argument, and hands them all over
> in @_. So your "topic passing" is just, well, passing the topic, like
> any ol' argument.
Ok,
Kay Röpke wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, Sep 18, 2002, at 17:42 Europe/Berlin, Piers Cawley wrote:
>
>> IMCC / Mac OS X problem
> Have those patches committed, yet? I tried last night (instead of
> sleeping...;-)) but failed utterly.
No, sorry. I'm still waiting for my imcc 0.0.9 patch to be chec
First, a thank you to whoever it is who is running these test-drive
machines (there's no name in the build log). Also, a thanks to Compaq
for setting them up.
There's a problem with the NetBSD machine. There's no 'perl' in the
$PATH being used, so the log file looks like this:
about to login t
On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Luke Palmer wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Josh Jore wrote:
> > On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Damian Conway wrote:
> > > > What possible outputs are legal for this:
> > > >
> > > > "aaa" =~ /( a { print 1 } | a { print 2 })* { print "\n" } x/
> >
> > I take it that what I've learned f
On Wednesday, Sep 18, 2002, at 17:42 Europe/Berlin, Piers Cawley wrote:
> IMCC / Mac OS X problem
> Leon Brocard (yay! Still batting 100% on this one...) has been
> having
> problems building IMCC under Mac OS X. The individual .c files all
> compile, but bad things happen at link t
At 8:27 AM -0700 9/19/02, Brent Dax wrote:
>Dan Sugalski:
># Sort of, yes.
>#
># Basically the behaviour of hyper-operated operators is delegated via
> ^
>Spending time in England lately? ;^)
Why, yes, actually. :-P But I've been using Pompous English Spelling for years.
Dan Sugalski:
# Sort of, yes.
#
# Basically the behaviour of hyper-operated operators is delegated via
^
Spending time in England lately? ;^)
# multimethod dispatch to the hyper-operator functions. By default the
Well, yeah. But that doesn't really answer my question
Josh Jore wrote:
>>>Would it be correct for this to print 0? Would it be correct for this
>>>to print 2?
>>>
>>> my $n = 0;
>>> "aargh" =~ /a* { $n++ } aargh/;
>>> print $n;
>>
>>Yes. ;-)
>
> Wouldn't that print 2 if $n is lexical
Err. It *is* lexical in this example.
> and 0 if it's local
19 matches
Mail list logo
