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
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
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
$
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.
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
