I've been working at updating the various synopses on dev.perl.org.
In particular, you folks might like to know that the regex synopsis at
http://dev.perl.org/perl6/synopsis/S05.html
is no longer two years out of date. :-)
Larry
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 12:45:17 +0200 (CEST), Michele Dondi
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Now I want to take a list of templates, say $t1, ... $tn and get the
> result of
>
> $result = pack $tn, ... pack $t2, pack $t1, @input;
>
> without actually writing the whole thing. To my knowledge and great
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 12:45:17PM +0200, Michele Dondi wrote:
: To my knowledge and great
: pleasure Perl6 will support currying and a builtin reduce/fold operator.
:
: So what I would like to do is (i) C the list of templates to a list
: of curried closures in which the first parameter is fixed
"Patrick R. Michaud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:How does p5 do it?
Brokenly. It looks for balanced curlies unintelligently; try:
perl -we '/(?{ "})" })/'
I'd expect p6 rules to be parsed using a grammar, and within such
a context to invoke the 'closure' rule; it's that rule that'd have
the res
- Original Message -
From: "Patrick R. Michaud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 3:56 pm
Subject: Re: Current state?
> On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 12:42:59PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> > : Of course, this is really language design -- Larry, you listening?
> >
> > Sure, I'
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> Assuming Perl 6 has a "pack", which it may not:
I know: this is one of the reasons why I wrote (hopefully *clearly*
enough) that I was just using it as an example. A user defined pack()
whoud do just the same here, anyway.
> for @t {
>
On Tue, 2004-09-14 at 14:40, Larry Wall wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 02:02:22PM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> : Of course, the regex itself can do this:
> :
> : qr{(fo*) ({$1 ne 'foo'})}
>
> Er, at the moment bare closures don't care about their return value,
> so as it currently stands,
At 8:13 PM +0200 9/14/04, James Mastros wrote:
Instead of looking to introduce a hack, look to figure out how we
can fit this ability into the design of rules. Instead of { ... }
just containing perl6 code, we need a way to signal that it's not
perl6 code.
How about... it brackets code in the c
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 12:42:59PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> : Of course, this is really language design -- Larry, you listening?
>
> Sure, I'm listening, but what's the point when I agree with everyone. :-)
>
> I agree that the default should be the current outer language.
> I agree that the d
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 08:13:13PM +0200, James Mastros wrote:
: Of course, this is really language design -- Larry, you listening?
Sure, I'm listening, but what's the point when I agree with everyone. :-)
I agree that the default should be the current outer language.
I agree that the default o
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 08:13:13PM +0200, James Mastros wrote:
> Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> >On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 04:03:49PM +0200, James Mastros wrote:
> >>Or, instead of thinking of this as a special-purpose thing
> >I think you meant something akin to C< /(.) { use PIR; print P0;}/ > and
>
Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 04:03:49PM +0200, James Mastros wrote:
Or, instead of thinking of this as a special-purpose thing
I think you meant something akin to C< /(.) { use PIR; print P0;}/ > and
C< /(.) { use Forth; P0 print}/ > :-) As long as we're special-casing
thing
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 12:31:44PM -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
> this is how we ported a PL/I compiler from a prime [...]
This is how most bootstrapping works. Here's a more detailed
description of how Squeak bootstraped itself:
http://users.ipa.net/~dwighth/squeak/oopsla_squeak.html
Z.
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 08:43:08AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> I'd suggest looking at the t/op/re_tests file from Perl 5. It's based
> on the test suite that originally came with Henry Spencer's regular
> expression package. It would, of course, need to be translated and
> extended, but it contain
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 04:03:49PM +0200, James Mastros wrote:
>
> Or, instead of thinking of this as a special-purpose thing, consider
> rules to be a sepperate language from perl, mostly independent of it,
> and the /default/ language for assertations/rules being perl, but allow
> a : attribu
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 08:30:45PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
: Aaron Sherman skribis 2004-09-14 14:02 (-0400):
: > qr{(fo*) ({$1 ne 'foo'})}
:
: What is the second set of parens for? Will the following suffice?
:
: rx/ (fo*) { $1 ne 'foo' } /
Bare closures are used only for their side effects
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 02:02:22PM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
: Of course, the regex itself can do this:
:
: qr{(fo*) ({$1 ne 'foo'})}
Er, at the moment bare closures don't care about their return value,
so as it currently stands, you'd want something more like:
rx/(fo*) {fail if $1 e
Aaron Sherman skribis 2004-09-14 14:02 (-0400):
> qr{(fo*) ({$1 ne 'foo'})}
What is the second set of parens for? Will the following suffice?
rx/ (fo*) { $1 ne 'foo' } /
And it is because of the lack of anchors that this won't work as
expected?
rx/ fo* /
Juerd
On Tue, 2004-09-14 at 06:45, Michele Dondi wrote:
[... snip ...]
> Now I want to take a list of templates, say $t1, ... $tn and get the
> result of
>
> $result = pack $tn, ... pack $t2, pack $t1, @input;
Assuming Perl 6 has a "pack", which it may not:
for @t {
$result
At Tue, 14 Sep 2004 12:31:44 -0400,
Uri Guttman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> just a few musings on bootstrapping the grammar. someone mentioned the
> idea of using Perl6::Rules to help with this and i think that could be a
> great way to go for several reasons.
FWIW, this was the idea motiva
On Tue, 2004-09-14 at 10:11, Abhijit Mahabal wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Sep 2004, Austin Hastings wrote:
> > That is, can I say:
> >
> > $my_rex = qr/fo*/ but not 'foo';
> The word "junction" came to my mind as I read your mail.
>
> $my_rex = qr/fo*/ & qr:not/foo/;
Of course, the regex itself can do
At 4:03 PM +0200 9/14/04, James Mastros wrote:
Now for the cons:
- The compilation interface doesn't have any way to be given a bunch of
code that includes code in the target language in the beginning, that
will consume that, then hand the rest back to us.
- This means that the grammar parser h
Luke Palmer wrote:
Judging from this, maybe we ought to have :not.
Anyway, it's still possible:
$my_rex = rx/fo*/ & none(rx/^foo$/);
For sure. On a side note, there should be a negating match operator for
use inside:
rx/\d+/ & none(rx/1984/)
could get awfully long if you had to handle sev
just a few musings on bootstrapping the grammar. someone mentioned the
idea of using Perl6::Rules to help with this and i think that could be a
great way to go for several reasons. it will take a fair amount of time
to get a new p6 rules engine (fearless leader said 1 month but i think
that is agg
I'd suggest looking at the t/op/re_tests file from Perl 5. It's based
on the test suite that originally came with Henry Spencer's regular
expression package. It would, of course, need to be translated and
extended, but it contains a lot of torturous tests for the standard
rx behavior. And it's a
Abhijit Mahabal writes:
>
> On Tue, 14 Sep 2004, Austin Hastings wrote:
>
> > I was thinking about removing files this morning, and realized that I
> > wish rm supported inclusion/exclusion.
> >
> > In particular, I wanted to remove "* but not Makefile" (since my
> > Makefile uses lwp-download to
On Sep 13, 2004, at 1:07 AM, Luke Palmer wrote:
Jeff Clites writes:
On Sep 12, 2004, at 8:43 PM, Luke Palmer wrote:
Jeff Clites writes:
On Sep 7, 2004, at 6:26 AM, Dan Sugalski wrote:
*) Namespaces are hierarchical
So we can have ["foo"; "bar"; "baz"] for a namespace. Woo hoo and
all
that. It'd ma
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 04:03:49PM +0200, James Mastros wrote:
> Or, instead of thinking of this as a special-purpose thing, consider
> rules to be a sepperate language from perl, mostly independent of it,
> and the /default/ language for assertations/rules being perl, but allow
> a : attribute
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 han
On 2004-09-14 at 08:40:55, Austin Hastings wrote:
> In particular, I wanted to remove "* but not Makefile" (since my
> Makefile uses lwp-download to re-fetch the source code, etc.)
Well, you can, depending on your shell:
in ksh: rm !(Makefile)
in bash: ditto, but you have to turn on the "extgl
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004, Austin Hastings wrote:
> I was thinking about removing files this morning, and realized that I
> wish rm supported inclusion/exclusion.
>
> In particular, I wanted to remove "* but not Makefile" (since my
> Makefile uses lwp-download to re-fetch the source code, etc.)
>
> It
I was thinking about removing files this morning, and realized that I
wish rm supported inclusion/exclusion.
In particular, I wanted to remove "* but not Makefile" (since my
Makefile uses lwp-download to re-fetch the source code, etc.)
It occurred to me to wonder: can P6's c do the same thing?
Dear all,
I've recently thought of a possible syntax extension for (Perl5's)
[un]pack() and I posted my "RFC" to clpmisc where it didn't have much
success, I must say. However I'm not interested in proposing it here, only
I would like to investigate a possible Perl6 technique inspired by those
33 matches
Mail list logo
