On Wed 16 Mar, Rod Adams wrote:
> I vote for axing C in favor of C and C.
>
Given A05 states that bare scalars match literally, quotemeta is (almost?)
obsolete. It can certainly be downgraded.
Richard
--
Personal [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.waveney.org
Telecoms [EMAIL PROT
How equivalent are << and «?
Does use of one idiom imply the closing quote is the same.
ie are the following allowed, prohibited or what?
<>
Just thinking...
Richard
--
Personal [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.waveney.org
Telecoms [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.WaveneyConsult
On Sun 19 Sep, Jonadab the Unsightly One wrote:
> >> Archimedes. It doesn't allow them at all, from what I understand.
> >
> > It probably doesn't disallow file extensions [per se], but the dot
>
> Could be. I haven't used it personally.
The name should be Risc-OS - the Archimedes is one of t
On Fri 17 Sep, Larry Wall wrote:
> : $?osWhich operating system am I operating on
>
> Again, which OS am I compiled on, or at best, which OS does the compiler
> think I'm compiling for, in the case of cross-compilation.
>
Therefore should:
$?os Be which operating system it is being c
On Fri 17 Sep, Larry Wall wrote:
>
> $?fileWhich file am I in?
> $?lineWhich line am I at?
> $?package Which package am I in?
> @?package Which packages am I in?
> $?module Which module am I in?
> @?module Which modules am I in?
> $?class Which class am I in
On Sun 05 Sep, David Green wrote:
> On 2004/9/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonathan Lang) wrote:
> (Nice Subject change, I almost missed it!)
>
> >Larry Wall wrote:
> > > Yow. Presumably "nth" without an argument would mean the last.
> >
> >If it means the last, why not just use C?
>
> Conflict with
I am not happy about the versioning proposal.
While A12 listed many properties that could apply to a a module such as
version, subject, author etc, the versioning declaration
class Dog-1.2.1-cpan:JRANDOM;
leaves me a little cold.
Issues:
1) Why does this only use Version and Author? Supp
On Wed 12 Mar, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, March 11, 2003, at 12:39 PM, Austin Hastings wrote:
> > You want C to tell the compiler to build in multiple dispatch.
> > Any invocation of C after C is going to be a penny
> > dropped into the great Pachinko game of multimethod-dispatchery.
If one has a simple sub such as factorial:
sub factorial(int $a) {...}
then one subsequently declares the multi form of factorial to pick up the
non-integer form:
multi factorial(num $a) {...}
Does this promote the original declaration of factorial to a multi?
if not what happens?
Richard
-
On Wed 11 Dec, Simon Cozens quoted:
> No proper program contains an indication which as an operator-applied
> occurrence identifies an operator-defining occurrence which as an
> indication- applied occurrence identifies an indication-defining occurrence
> different from the one identified by the g
On Thu 05 Dec, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> So here's your essay topic:
>
> Explain how having indexes (arrays, substr, etc...) in Perl 6 start at 0
> will benefit most users. Do not invoke legacy. [1]
>
> [1] ie. "because that's how most other languages do it" or "everyone is
> used to it by now"
On Thu 14 Nov, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 12:19:47PM +, Andy Wardley wrote:
> > Can we overload + in Perl 6 to work as both numeric addition
> > and string concatenation, depending on the type of the operand
> > on the left?
There have been times when I have wondered i
On Wed 06 Nov, Piers Cawley wrote:
> miniparrot, a first attempt
> If you've been paying attention to the Parrot build process, you'll be
> aware that it was always a goal to use a cut down variant of parrot
> itself to run the configuration tests. The plan is that this miniparrot
>
On Tue 05 Nov, Smylers wrote:
> Richard Proctor wrote:
>
> > I am sitting at a computer that is operating in native Latin-1 and is
> > quite happy - there is no likelyhood that UTF* is ever likely to reach
> > it.
> >
> > ... Therefore the only addition
This UTF discussion has got silly.
I am sitting at a computer that is operating in native Latin-1 and is
quite happy - there is no likelyhood that UTF* is ever likely to reach it.
The Gillemets are coming through fine, but most of the other heiroglyphs need
a lot to be desired.
Lets consider the
On Fri 01 Nov, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
>
>(heredocs) - [exact format unknown; probably as perl5]
>
There are comments by Larry in Appo 2 wrt RFCs 111 and 162.
Appo 2:
===
111 aaa Here Docs Terminators (Was Whitespace and Here Docs)
162 abb Heredoc Contents
RFC 111: Here D
On Wed 30 Oct, Larry Wall wrote:
> An earlier message had something like this as a hyper:
>
> @a = @b[.method];
>
> That absolutely won't work, because [.method] is a valid subscript.
> In this case it would have to be written
>
> @a = @b[.]method;
>
> But the general problem is just ab
Larry,
Wow, that was a very good demolition and rebuilding of the regex edifice.
When the RFCs were being written I spent many hours thinking over some
of the issues and writting many of the RFCs on regexes, trying to build on
what was in perl5, without changing the existing language use. By al
On Sun 20 Jan, Me wrote:
> > On Saturday 19 January 2002 22:05, Brent Dax wrote:
> > > Is this list of special blocks complete and correct?
> > >
> > > BEGIN Executes at the beginning of compilation
> > > CHECK Executes at the end of compilation
> > > INIT Executes at the beginning of run
> > > EN
On Fri 18 May, Damian Conway wrote:
>
> Ed wrote:
>
>
>> Can 'undef' valued thingys have properties
>
> Yes.
>
>> and functions?
>
> No.
>
Why not?
Richard
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu 17 May, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 11:58:07AM -0400, Adam Turoff wrote:
> > It's not so much that Perl shouldn't have data structures or modules.
> > I think what Stephen is saying (and he's not the only one) is that
> > the bare minimum amount of Perl you *must* kno
On Sat 05 May, John Siracusa wrote:
> On 5/5/01 3:28 PM, Larry Wall wrote:
> > Well, that's enough brainwracking for the moment. Gloria is making me
> > go eat something...
>
> Bread and water until Apocalypse 33 is done? ;)
At one Apocalypse a month, that is a very long time... Would Larry su
In Apocalypse 2, \Q is being used for two things, and I believe this may be
ambiguious.
It has the current \Quote meaning admitibly \Q{oute} it is also being
proposed for a null token disambiguate context. As in $foo\Q[bar].
But if it is spliting $foo and {this is in curlies} this will be taken
On Fri 06 Apr, John Porter wrote:
> Richard Proctor wrote:
> > but what should
> > @bar = @foo x 2;
> > do? Repeat @foo twice or repeat each element twice? (its current
> > behaviour is less than useless, other than for JAPHs)
>
> How is one signifi
On Fri 06 Apr, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> This is, I presume, in addition to any sort of inherent DWIMmery? I don't
> see any reason that:
>
> @foo[1,2] = ;
>
> shouldn't read just two lines from that filehandle, for example, nor why
>
Fair enough
> @bar = @foo * 12;
>
> shouldn't assign
Ok,
Iv'e seen this debate - I will try to put something constructive:-
Richard
=Head1 My opinions of the Perl6 RFC process
=head2 Where do I come from this?
I am an amauteur perl user who uses it on web sites and for other admin
tasks. Have I looked at the code? - Yes. Do I know the insid
> On Fri, 29 Sep 2000 01:02:40 +0100, Hugo wrote:
>
> >It also isn't clear what parts of the expression are interpolated at
> >compile time; what should the following leave in %foo?
> >
> > %foo = ();
> > $bar = "one";
> > "twothree" =~ / (?$bar=two) (?$foo{$bar}=three) /x;
>
> It's not just
On Wed 27 Sep, Dave Storrs wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, Richard Proctor wrote:
> > > Both \1 and $1 refer to what is matched by the first set of parens in a
> > > regex. AFAIK, the only difference between these two notation is that
> > > \1 is used wi
Dave,
> Both \1 and $1 refer to what is matched by the first set of parens in a
> regex. AFAIK, the only difference between these two notation is that \1
> is used within the regex itself and $1 is used outside of the regex. Is
> there any reason not to standardize these down to one notation
> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]/, Perl6 RFC
> Librarian writes:
> :Given that expansion of regexes could include (+...) and (*...) I
> :have been thinking about providing a general purpose way of adding
> :functionality. Hence I propose that the entire (+...) syntax is
> :kept free from formal specifi
HI Tom,
Welcome to England (I presume)
> This seems very complicated. Did you look at the Ram:6 recipe on
> expressing AND, OR, and NOT in a regex? For example, to do
> /FOO/ && /BAR/ you need not write /FOO.*BAR|BAR.*FOO/ -- and in
> fact, should not, as it doesn't work properly on some pa
On Mon 25 Sep, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
> This and other RFCs are available on the web at
> http://dev.perl.org/rfc/
>
> =head1 TITLE
>
> First-Class CGI Support
>
> Maintainer: Adam Turoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> To make CGI programming easier, this option/pragma should:
>
> Turn on ta
Simon,
> I think I said in the RFC, didn't I? It's extending the counting use of tr///
> to allow you to count several different letters at once. For instance, letter
> frequencies in text is an important metric for linguists, codebreakers and
> others; think about how you'd get letter frequenc
On Sun 24 Sep, Hugo wrote:
> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Richard Proctor
> writes
> :
> :TomCs perl storm has:
> :
> :> Figure out way to do
> :>
> :> /$e1 $e2/
> :>
> :> safely, where $e1 might have '(foo) \1' in it.
> :> a
TomCs perl storm has:
> Figure out way to do
>
> /$e1 $e2/
>
> safely, where $e1 might have '(foo) \1' in it.
> and $e2 might have '(bar) \1' in it. Those won't work.
If e1 and e2 are qr// type things the answer might be to localise
the backref numbers in each qr// expression.
If th
is hard work.
>
> I'll be contacting the authors of all outstanding RFCs shortly to
> encourage them to work towards freezing them as soon as practical.
>
> Hugo
>
Welcome to the job
> RFC 112: Assignment within a regex (Richard Proctor)
>
> No discussion.
Ther
On Sat 16 Sep, Mark-Jason Dominus wrote:
>
> > (?Q$foo) Quotes the contents of the scalar $foo - equivalent to
> > (??{ quotemeta $foo }).
>
> How is this different from
>
> \Q$foo\E
Um - not at all - think of it as a brainstorming overrun...
BTW have you any thoughts about my "Genera
On Fri 15 Sep, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 06:38:37PM +0100, Richard Proctor wrote:
> > 1) << removes whitespace equivalent to the terminator (e) this is largely
> > backward complatible as many existing heredocs are unlikely to have white
> >
On Fri 15 Sep, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> Michael G Schwern wrote:
> > So indenting the terminator and indenting the text are linked. If you
> > do one, you want to do the other.
>
> As I and many others have said, that's not necessarily true. I like all
> my code to line up, braces, parens, and all.
This whole debate has got silly.
RFC 111 V1 covered both the whitespace on the terminator and the
indenting - there was a lot of debate that this was two things - more were
in favour of the terminator and there was more debate on the indenting.
Therefore I split this into two RFCs leaving RFC111
This whole debate has got silly.
RFC 111 V1 covered both the whitespace on the terminator and the
indenting - there was a lot of debate that this was two things - more were
in favour of the terminator and there was more debate on the indenting.
Therefore I split this into two RFCs leaving RFC111
In Michael Schwerns prototype, expansion to treat both semicolons and comments
at the end tag is possible by changing
/^(\s*)$curr_tag\s*$/
to
/^(\s*)$curr_tag\s*(;\s*)?(#.*)?$/
Richard
)
It needs to match (.*)<<((["'`])(\w+)\2)|(\w+))(.*) or something like that.
Richard Proctor
On Wed 13 Sep, Bart Lateur wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Sep 2000 19:01:35 -0400, Mark-Jason Dominus wrote:
>
> >I don't know what you mean, but you're mistaken, because it means to
> >interpolate @foo as in a double-quoted string.
>
> Which is precisely the meaning he wants for it, with $" set to '|'.
>
(proto RFC possibly, and some generalised ramblings)
Given that expansion of regexes could include (+...) and (*...) I have been
thinking about providing a general purpose way of adding functionality.
I propose that the entire (+...) syntax is kept free from formal
specification for this and is
On Mon 11 Sep, Mark-Jason Dominus wrote:
>
> > (?@foo) is sort of equivalent to (??{join('|',@foo)}), ie it expands into
> > a list of alternatives. One could possible use just @foo, for this.
>
> It just occurs to me that this is already possible. I've written a
> module, 'atq', such that if
Hugo wrote:
> Definitely. Should be easy to implement. There is a potential for
> confusion, since it makes the tr/ lists look even more like
> m/ and s/ patterns, but I think it can only be less confusion than
> the current state of affairs. It is tempting to make it the default,
> and have a fla
This RFC had three concepts, I propose dropping the "Not a pattern" from here
as it is now in RFC 198 and the null element. The List expansion might
benefit from a slight enhancement.
Hugo:
> (?@foo) and (?Q@foo) are both things I've wanted before now. I'm
> not sure if this is the right syntax,
This list has gone a little quiet...
Hugo wrote:
> I like this too. I'd suggest /t should mean a) return a scalar of
> the number of matches and b) don't set any special variables. Then
> /t without /g would return 0 or 1, but be faster since no extra
> information need be captured (except intern
On Fri 08 Sep, Kevin Walker wrote:
> (This thread has been inactive for a while. See
> http://www.mail-archive.com/perl6-language-regex@perl.org/index.html#0
> 0015 for it's short history.)
>
> Long ago Tom Christiansen wrote:
>
> >This is useful in that it would stop being number dependent.
On Fri 08 Sep, Eric Roode wrote:
> Does anyone EVER use chomp() except shortly after reading a line
> of input from a stream? No?
>
Yes
> Perhaps $/ and $\ should become per-filehandle variables, and
> there should be some way to set autochomp-on-read per filehandle,
> and auto-newline-on-out
On Wed 06 Sep, Mark-Jason Dominus wrote:
>
> I've been thinking the same thing. It seems to me that the attempts to
> shoehorn parsers into regex syntax have either been unsuccessful
> (yielding an underpowered extension) or illegible or both.
>
>SNOBOL:
> parenstring = '(' *parenstrin
On Wed 06 Sep, David Corbin wrote:
> Nathan Wiger wrote:
> >
> > > It would be useful (and increasingly more common) to be able to match
> > > qr|<\s*(\w+)([^>]*)>| to qr|<\s*/\1\s*>|, and handle the case where
> > > those can nest as well. Something like
> > >
> > > match this with
> > >
On Tue 05 Sep, Nathan Wiger wrote:
>"normal" "reversed"
>-- ---
>103301
>99aa99
>(( ))
><+ +>
>{{[!<_ _>!]}}
>{__A1( )A1__}
>
> That is, when a bracket is encountered, the
On Tue 05 Sep, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> Eric Roode wrote:
> Now *that* sounds cool, I like it!
>
> What if the RFC only suggested the addition of two new constructs, (?[)
> and (?]), which did nested matches. The rest would be bound by standard
> regex constructs and your imagination!
>
> That is,
On Tue 05 Sep, David Corbin wrote:
> Nathan Wiger wrote:
> >
> > But, how about a new ?m operator?
> >
> >/(?m<<|[).*?(?M>>|])/;
> >
>
> Let's combine yor operator with my example from above where everything
> inside the (?m) or the ?(M)
> fits the syntax of a RE.
>
> /(?m(<<)|\[)
On Tue 05 Sep, David Corbin wrote:
> Nathan Wiger wrote:
> >
> > But, how about a new ?m operator?
> >
> >/(?m<<|[).*?(?M>>|])/;
> >
>
> Let's combine yor operator with my example from above where everything
> inside the (?m) or the ?(M)
> fits the syntax of a RE.
>
> /(?m(<<)|\[)
On Thu 31 Aug, Mark-Jason Dominus wrote:
> Summary report 2831
> RFC 110: counting matches (Richard Proctor)
>
> An extensive side discussion of
>
> $count = () = m/PAT/g;
>
> developed, including an excursion off into context issues. I have
> asked th
On Tue 29 Aug, Mark-Jason Dominus wrote:
>
> OK, I think this discussion should be closed.
>
> Richard should add a section to RFC110 that discusses the
>
> $count = () = m/PAT/g;
>
> locution and its advantages and disadvantages compared to his
> proposal, duly taking into account the
On Tue 29 Aug, Mark-Jason Dominus wrote:
>
> 2. You can already write /$foo(?:)bar/ to get what you wanted. This
>is almost identical to what Richard proposed anyway.
This has the effect I was after.
>
> It is really not clear to me that this problem needs to be solved any
> better than i
On Tue 29 Aug, Mark-Jason Dominus wrote:
>
> Richard Proctor's RFC166 says:
>
> > =head2 Matching Not a pattern
> >
> > (?^pattern) matches anything that does not match the pattern. On
> > its own, one can use !~ etc to negatively match patterns, but to
> > match a pattern that has foo(anythin
On Mon 28 Aug, Tom Christiansen wrote:
> >> It's nearly part of Perl's language signature. I wouldn't count
> >> on this going away if you still think to call this "Perl". It is
> >> of course much more likely in the renamed "Frob" language, however.
>
> >First off, this argument is just a litt
On Mon 28 Aug, Bart Lateur wrote:
> On 27 Aug 2000 19:23:51 -, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
>
> >It only removes whitespace,
> >and it measures whitespace with tabs=8.
>
> My editor is set to tabs=4. Perl's interpretation wouldn't agree with
> the visual appearance in my editor. This doesn't s
On Mon 28 Aug, Bart Lateur wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Aug 2000 10:38:42 -0400 (EDT), Eric Roode wrote:
>
> >People may throw rocks at me for this, but I'd like to suggest that
> >not only is a comment allowed on the terminator line, but a semicolon
> >also be allowed. Vis:
> >
> >print < >EOL;
On Mon 28 Aug, Eric Roode wrote:
> Richard Proctor proposed:
> >
> > All of these should work:
> >
> > print < >EOL
> > print << EOL;
> > EOL
> > print < >EOL # this is the end of the here doc
>
>
On Fri 25 Aug, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> > I was sorta going under the assumption that <<< would cause leading and
> > trailing whitespace to be ignored (not stripped) when looking for the
> > end-of-here-doc indicator. Because whitespace is ignored, I was then
> > proposing some new syntax for strip
On Fri 18 Aug, Damian Conway wrote:
>> All of these can be done today but are not necessarily "easy".
>>
>
> /\A(?s:(?!and).)*\Z/
>
> /pattern returned from ${\some_function} as part of a regex/
>
> /match any of (${\join'|',@list}) here/
>
I am not saying these things can't be done,
pattern as part of many regexs this is not easy. (The
keyword there is PART).
* Using the pattern returned from some function as part of a regex
* Using an array of "words" as an alternate list as part of a regex
* Fill your idea in here [ ]
Richard Proctor
[ Years
68 matches
Mail list logo
