On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Moritz Lenz wrote:
>
>
> Aaron Sherman wrote:
>
> > I had a hard time even getting basic code working like:
> >
> > token foo { blah }
> > if "blah" ~~ m// { say "blah!" }
> >
> > (See my question to the list, last week)
>
> Right. What works today is
>
> gr
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Moritz Lenz wrote:
>
>
> Aaron Sherman wrote:
>
> > I had a hard time even getting basic code working like:
> >
> > token foo { blah }
> > if "blah" ~~ m// { say "blah!" }
> >
> > (See my question to the list, last week)
>
> Right. What works today is
>
> gr
Aaron Sherman wrote:
> Ooops, took this off-list by accident.
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: ajs
> Date: Mon, May 17, 2010 at 2:59 PM
> Subject: Re: URI replacement pseudocode
> To: Moritz Lenz
>
>
> Thank you for your responses!
>
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 3:00 PM, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> FFFE and FEFF are used to manage byte-ordering, so they really shouldn't be
> part of a URI (URIs should exist in a context in which byte ordering is
> assured, would be my take).
Neither U+FFFE nor U+ is a valid character, but U+FEFF i
Ooops, took this off-list by accident.
-- Forwarded message --
From: ajs
Date: Mon, May 17, 2010 at 2:59 PM
Subject: Re: URI replacement pseudocode
To: Moritz Lenz
Thank you for your responses!
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 1:37 PM, Moritz Lenz wrote:
> Aaron Sherman wr
Hi,
Aaron Sherman wrote:
> Over the past week, I've been using my scant bits of nighttime coding to
> cobble together a pseudocode version of what I think the URI module should
> look like. There's already one available as example code, but it doesn't
> actually implement either the URI or IRI spe
Over the past week, I've been using my scant bits of nighttime coding to
cobble together a pseudocode version of what I think the URI module should
look like. There's already one available as example code, but it doesn't
actually implement either the URI or IRI spec correctly. Instead, this
approac
