On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 02:05:50PM -0400, Brent Dax wrote:
: Larry Wall:
: > argument. In fact, ??:: could be implemented as an infix:?? macro
: > that does a special parse looking for a subsequent :: token.
:
: ...which gives us another built-in's implementation.
:
: macro infix:?? ($cond,
Larry Wall:
> argument. In fact, ??:: could be implemented as an infix:?? macro
> that does a special parse looking for a subsequent :: token.
...which gives us another built-in's implementation.
macro infix:?? ($cond, $expr1, $expr2)
is parsed(/:w () <'::'> ()/) {
return {
On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 08:40:26AM -0700, Austin Hastings wrote:
: You're both right.
Well, actually, I think Damian misspoke slightly. I only aim for
95% accuracy in the Apocalypses (or I'd never get them done). So I
think it's pretty spectacular if Damian gets to 99.44% accuracy in
the Exegese
--- "Abhijit A. Mahabal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In E6 Damien writes about macros:
>
> "As soon as it has parsed that subroutine call (including its
> argument
> list) it will detect that the subroutine &request is actually a
> macro, so
> it will immidiately call &request with the specified
In E6 Damien writes about macros:
"As soon as it has parsed that subroutine call (including its argument
list) it will detect that the subroutine &request is actually a macro, so
it will immidiately call &request with the specified arguments".
If macroness is found *after* parsing the arguments,
