On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 07:37:58PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> I think I'd rather see a :lang('tcl') option since :c is taken and
> :l isn't. But mostly people will want to put
> use rule :lang;
> or some such at the beginning of the file, since all the rule actions
> are likely to be in the sa
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 12:45:11PM -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
: On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 08:51:39AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: >
: > For languages that cannot do one-pass parsing, it would be saner in
: > the long run for rules to delimit such code with delimiters that
: > are unlikely to occ
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 08:51:39AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
>
> For languages that cannot do one-pass parsing, it would be saner in
> the long run for rules to delimit such code with delimiters that
> are unlikely to occur in the target language. Double curlies, or
> here docs, or some such. Tha
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 08:42:44AM -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
: In short, when PGE's
: parser encounters a code block, it needs to hand off control to
: the target language's compiler to parse to the end of the
: code block and receive back from that compiler the length of
: the block parsed.
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 05:19:06PM -0400, Matt Diephouse wrote:
> What is the plan for integrating code blocks into PGE? Will Coleda
> mentioned on IRC that this issue came up at YAPC, but didn't seem to
> indicate that there was any plan. As we transition to using PGE for
> Tcl parsing, it'd be ni
What is the plan for integrating code blocks into PGE? Will Coleda
mentioned on IRC that this issue came up at YAPC, but didn't seem to
indicate that there was any plan. As we transition to using PGE for
Tcl parsing, it'd be nice to have code blocks.
Specifically, it'd be nice to be able to specif
