Re: Pugs Bug

2005-04-05 Thread Larry Wall
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 07:31:40PM +0300, wolverian wrote: : Does [EMAIL PROTECTED] DWIM, by the way? I'm not sure about the precedence. That depends on whether you mean ([EMAIL PROTECTED]).words or ~(@array.words) It happens to mean the latter. A . binds tighter than a symbolic unary

Re: Pugs Bug

2005-04-05 Thread Juerd
wolverian skribis 2005-04-05 19:31 (+0300): > Does [EMAIL PROTECTED] DWIM, by the way? I'm not sure about the precedence. Yes, . is supertight. Juerd -- http://convolution.nl/maak_juerd_blij.html http://convolution.nl/make_juerd_happy.html http://convolution.nl/gajigu_juerd_n.html

Re: Pugs Bug

2005-04-05 Thread wolverian
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 09:21:41AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote: > Plus you really don't want to clutter the Str type with every little > thing you might want to do with a string. "foo".open() will probably > work, but only because it doesn't find a Str.open and fails over to > MMD dispatch, which ends

Re: Pugs Bug

2005-04-05 Thread Larry Wall
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 09:36:18AM +0300, wolverian wrote: : (Replying to p6l instead of p6c as requested.) : : On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 10:39:16AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote: : > (Now that builtins are just functions out in * space, we can probably : > afford to throw a few more convenience functions

Re: Pugs Bug

2005-04-05 Thread Adriano Ferreira
> Shouldn't these be just methods? I guess not. This is Perl and OO is not mandatory, or even desirable all the time. Adriano.

Re: Pugs Bug

2005-04-05 Thread wolverian
(Replying to p6l instead of p6c as requested.) On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 10:39:16AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote: > (Now that builtins are just functions out in * space, we can probably > afford to throw a few more convenience functions out there for common > operations like word splitting and whitespace

Re: Pugs Bug

2005-04-04 Thread Larry Wall
On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 05:28:44PM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote: : On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 09:32:12PM -0500, Stevan Little wrote: : > I was writing tests for split(, ) and I stumbled upon this : > bug: : > : > pugs -e 'split(rx:perl5//, "not good")' : > : > Will go into an infinite loop. I also tr

Re: Pugs Bug

2005-04-03 Thread Autrijus Tang
On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 09:32:12PM -0500, Stevan Little wrote: > I was writing tests for split(, ) and I stumbled upon this > bug: > > pugs -e 'split(rx:perl5//, "not good")' > > Will go into an infinite loop. I also tried the empty regexp in a match > on it's own, and it was not a problem. >

Re: Pugs Bug

2005-04-02 Thread Uri Guttman
> "AS" == Andrew Savige <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: AS> The sometimes seemingly arbitrary semantics of p5 split seem to AS> have become something of a de facto standard, with even Java and AS> .NET following suit (I *think*, not certain about this and too AS> lazy to check right now).

Re: Pugs Bug

2005-04-02 Thread Andrew Savige
--- Stevan Little wrote: > I was writing tests for split(, ) and I stumbled upon this > bug: > > pugs -e 'split(rx:perl5//, "not good")' > > Will go into an infinite loop. I also tried the empty regexp in a match > on it's own, and it was not a problem. Further to that, I noticed that the somewh