At 10:42 AM 11/29/00 +, Nick Ing-Simmons wrote:
>Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >At 07:03 PM 11/28/00 +, Tom Hughes wrote:
> >>In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > The third parameter is the flags parameter, and it's
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 10:42 AM 11/29/00 +, Nick Ing-Simmons wrote:
>
> >FILE * is not a good idea. PerlIO * is fine.
>
> The problem with that is we're potentially getting the filehandle from
> something that isn't perl. Or so my
On Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 09:38:44AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 10:42 AM 11/29/00 +, Nick Ing-Simmons wrote:
> >FILE * is not a good idea. PerlIO * is fine.
>
> The problem with that is we're potentially getting the filehandle from
> something that isn't perl. Or so my thinking went at t
> "SF" == Steve Fink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
SF> Handling the parser's state can be done in a backtracking DFA-like or a
SF> direct NFA-like way. The NFA way is to keep track of all possible parse
SF> states and advance each one in parallel based on the next token. The DFA
SF> way is recu
Tom Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> At 10:42 AM 11/29/00 +, Nick Ing-Simmons wrote:
>>
>> >FILE * is not a good idea. PerlIO * is fine.
>>
>> The problem with that is we're potentially getting the filehan
> "NC" == Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
NC> But on the other hand I also liked Simon Cozen's argument that it should
NC> be easy to embed somewhere else, in which case why do we want to make
NC> the parser have a dependency on the IO library?
I can't see anyway that the dependen
On Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 09:51:07AM -0800, Dave Storrs wrote:
> I have a feeling this is a stupid question, but I have to ask anyway.
> Do we really need to pass in a PerlInterp pointer?
Yes. Threads. There's a reason for all the PERL_EXPLICIT_CONTEXT anxiety.
--
Old Japanese proverb:
T
Chaim Frenkel wrote:
>
> > "SF" == Steve Fink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> SF> Handling the parser's state can be done in a backtracking DFA-like or a
> SF> direct NFA-like way. The NFA way is to keep track of all possible parse
> SF> states and advance each one in parallel based on the n
I have a feeling this is a stupid question, but I have to ask anyway.
Do we really need to pass in a PerlInterp pointer? Or can perl6_parse
just create one for itself if/when it needs one? If created, it could of
course be kept around so that it didn't need to be re-created later.
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>At 07:03 PM 11/28/00 +, Tom Hughes wrote:
>>In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > The third parameter is the flags parameter, and it's optional. If omitted
>> > or set to PERL_CHAR_SOURCE, the secon
At 09:51 AM 11/29/00 -0800, Dave Storrs wrote:
>I have a feeling this is a stupid question, but I have to ask anyway.
>
>Do we really need to pass in a PerlInterp pointer? Or can perl6_parse
>just create one for itself if/when it needs one? If created, it could of
>course be kept around so that
At 09:58 AM 11/29/00 -0800, Steve Fink wrote:
>As soon as the lexer sees "s#", it
>starts treating # as a delimiter -- it doesn't need to conditionally
>treat the # as either a delimiter or a comment. (Especially since
>there's nothing following it that could resolve the ambiguity!)
One thing I'v
At 07:07 PM 11/29/00 +, Simon Cozens wrote:
>On Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 02:02:31PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > I'm really thinking that the lexer, parser, and tokenizer can't be
> anywhere
> > near as separate as we'd like. I think we're going to end up with a rather
> > odd mutant beast. Hop
At 02:49 PM 11/29/00 +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
>On Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 09:38:44AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > At 10:42 AM 11/29/00 +, Nick Ing-Simmons wrote:
>
> > >FILE * is not a good idea. PerlIO * is fine.
> >
> > The problem with that is we're potentially getting the filehandle fro
At 04:16 PM 11/28/00 -0800, Steve Fink wrote:
>Perl5 is parseable with a single token of lookahead and lots of
>parser/lexer communication. Sort of. It would be nice to prevent it from
>getting any worse.
I'm really thinking that the lexer, parser, and tokenizer can't be anywhere
near as separat
On Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 02:02:31PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> I'm really thinking that the lexer, parser, and tokenizer can't be anywhere
> near as separate as we'd like. I think we're going to end up with a rather
> odd mutant beast. Hopefully one that's understandable by reasonably sane
> p
Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
> At 04:16 PM 11/28/00 -0800, Steve Fink wrote:
> >Perl5 is parseable with a single token of lookahead and lots of
> >parser/lexer communication. Sort of. It would be nice to prevent it from
> >getting any worse.
>
> I'm really thinking that the lexer, parser, and tokenizer
Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 02:02:31PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > I'm really thinking that the lexer, parser, and tokenizer can't be
> anywhere
> > near as separate as we'd like. I think we're going to end up with a
> rather
> > odd mutant beast. H
At 01:38 PM 11/29/00 +, David Grove wrote:
>That's basically where I've been talking about a "creole processor", which
>would in these terms be a pre-preprocessor, I imagine. This was also my
>original source of confusion, since I thought that this was the primary
>goal of the "pre-processor".
19 matches
Mail list logo
