Re: The split opcode

2004-12-11 Thread Leopold Toetsch
James deBoer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ok. If we are moving things like split into objects at some point in the > future, should the split opcode be removed now? This again goes into: what's an opcode. There are two views: - surface: i.e. what the assembler understands - in core: what the runco

Re: The split opcode

2004-12-11 Thread James deBoer
Leopold Toetsch wrote: James deBoer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I would even go further than that and say that if we went with PGE::Rule's "split", the split opcode should be obsoleted. All these function/method like opcodes will be refactured somewhen. WRT split (you write): PGE::Rule."spl

Re: The split opcode

2004-12-10 Thread Leopold Toetsch
James deBoer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I would even go further than that and say that if we went with > PGE::Rule's "split", the split opcode should be obsoleted. All these function/method like opcodes will be refactured somewhen. WRT split (you write): PGE::Rule."split"() in general $

Re: The split opcode

2004-12-10 Thread James deBoer
Patrick R. Michaud wrote: On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 01:34:03PM -0500, James deBoer wrote: Currently, the split opcode is declared as 'split(out PMC, in STR, in STR)' where $2 is a regex. PGE, however, currently supports three types of regular expressions, and more are likely going to be added.

Re: The split opcode

2004-12-10 Thread Patrick R. Michaud
On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 01:34:03PM -0500, James deBoer wrote: > Currently, the split opcode is declared as 'split(out PMC, in STR, in > STR)' where $2 is a regex. > > PGE, however, currently supports three types of regular expressions, and > more are likely going to be added. So, which type of r