Re: RFC from a newbie: Method References

2000-12-17 Thread Jeremy Howard
Michael G Schwern wrote: > On Sun, Dec 17, 2000 at 12:11:01PM +1100, Jeremy Howard wrote: > > Something to be careful of--it's easy to create a circular reference when > > using method pointers. As a result, neither the referrer nor referee objects > > are ever destroyed. > > > > When using method

Re: Now, to try again...

2000-12-17 Thread Simon Cozens
On Sun, Dec 17, 2000 at 01:20:07AM +, Nicholas Clark wrote: > I'm assuming we're all sort of thinking that input is certainly > [good stuff] > > I don't think you can do that with eval in perl5, can you? > If not, it represents something new the parser will have to be able to > communicate wi

Re: Now, to try again...

2000-12-17 Thread Nicholas Clark
On Sun, Dec 17, 2000 at 12:43:15PM +, Simon Cozens wrote: > On Sun, Dec 17, 2000 at 01:20:07AM +, Nicholas Clark wrote: > > I'm assuming we're all sort of thinking that input is certainly > > [good stuff] Thanks, but you were supposed to tell me what I'd missed :-) > > I don't think you

Re: Now, to try again...

2000-12-17 Thread Andy Dougherty
On Sat, 16 Dec 2000, David Grove wrote: > Because what is the parser/lexer/tokenizer parsing? Perl? Pythonic? > Javanese? All of them? Thinking of just the parser as a single entity > seems to me to be headed into trouble unless we can define in advance what > type of role these dialects will pla

Re: Now, to try again...

2000-12-17 Thread Simon Cozens
On Sun, Dec 17, 2000 at 09:45:30AM -0500, Andy Dougherty wrote: > (yet-to-be-written perl-lex) Wolfgang Laun may take issue with that adjective. -- The trouble with computers is that they do what you tell them, not what you want. -- D. Cohen

A parser that can handle partial programs (was Re: Now, to try again...)

2000-12-17 Thread Bradley M. Kuhn
Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Something I though of: > If you're trying to write an interactive perl inputer - either a perl shell > or just the command prompt on the debugger it would be useful if you > could tell the parser that the chunk of source you're giving it may be > incomp

input to the parser (was Re: Now, to try again...)

2000-12-17 Thread Bradley M. Kuhn
Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Everyone is quiet. Give us a chance. ;) > I'm assuming we're all sort of thinking that input is certainly > (I will have failed to mention some things) > * human readable programming language source (perl5, perl6, whatever else) > * bytecode (which c

Re: Now, to try again...

2000-12-17 Thread Sam Tregar
On Sun, 17 Dec 2000, Andy Dougherty wrote: > Now matter how we slice it, it's going to be very hard for the first > person to twist perl6 to parse something that is both complex and very > different from Perl6. And I'm unconvinced that this difficulty ought to > hold up the entire process. It w

Re: Now, to try again...

2000-12-17 Thread David Grove
Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Dec 17, 2000 at 12:43:15PM +, Simon Cozens wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 17, 2000 at 01:20:07AM +, Nicholas Clark wrote: > > > I'm assuming we're all sort of thinking that input is certainly > > > [good stuff] > > Thanks, but you were su

Re: Now, to try again...

2000-12-17 Thread David Grove
Andy Dougherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, 16 Dec 2000, David Grove wrote: > > > Because what is the parser/lexer/tokenizer parsing? Perl? Pythonic? > > Javanese? All of them? Thinking of just the parser as a single entity > > seems to me to be headed into trouble unless we can def

Re: String representation

2000-12-17 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 11:13 AM 12/16/00 -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote: >On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 03:10:16PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote: > > At 11:18 AM 12/15/00 -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote: > > >On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 12:13:01PM +, Simon Cozens wrote: > > > > IMHO, the first thing we need to design and code i

Re: Now, to try again...

2000-12-17 Thread Sam Tregar
On Sun, 17 Dec 2000, David Grove wrote: > That sounds too complex for what seems like a more simple solution. When > you say "turn simple 'languages' into perl", that's what Dan's told me is > my source filter. Actually, it's a bit more than a source filter. The goal > would be to turn the creole

Re: Now, to try again...

2000-12-17 Thread David Grove
Sam Tregar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I imagine that each supported language will likely have its own prefered > parsing strategy. Some will be perfectly lex-yacc-able. Some will be > more like Perl than that and would benefit from some hooks into Perl's > existing parser. I think we jus

Re: Now, to try again...

2000-12-17 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 09:45 AM 12/17/00 -0500, Andy Dougherty wrote: >On Sat, 16 Dec 2000, David Grove wrote: > > > Because what is the parser/lexer/tokenizer parsing? Perl? Pythonic? > > Javanese? All of them? Thinking of just the parser as a single entity > > seems to me to be headed into trouble unless we can def

Re: Now, to try again...

2000-12-17 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 02:08 PM 12/16/00 +, David Grove wrote: >Ok, _from_ the books on the reading list, I'm seeing no precedent for a >parser/lexer/tokenizer that uses multiple input "languages". Yes I know >that GCC does F77/ASM/C/C++ but I'm not sure those completely relate. >Simon (?) brought up the problem

Re: Now, to try again...

2000-12-17 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 01:22 PM 12/17/00 +, David Grove wrote: >Sam Tregar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I imagine that each supported language will likely have its own >prefered > > parsing strategy. Some will be perfectly lex-yacc-able. Some will be > > more like Perl than that and would benefit from so

Re: A parser that can handle partial programs (was Re: Now, to try again...)

2000-12-17 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 12:41 PM 12/17/00 -0500, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: >Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Something I though of: > > If you're trying to write an interactive perl inputer - either a perl shell > > or just the command prompt on the debugger it would be useful if you > > could tell the par

Re: Now, to try again...

2000-12-17 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 11:58 AM 12/17/00 +, David Grove wrote: >As the maker of such an editor, I wouldn't mind getting any help from perl >that can be gotten in this area. It's not really the rules that are >gotchas, but the exceptions to the rules. The elements that you mentioned >(strings and regexen) are extr

Re: input to the parser (was Re: Now, to try again...)

2000-12-17 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 12:43 PM 12/17/00 -0500, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: >Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > and the above can come from > > * memory (C's zero terminated strings, blocks with lengths, other things > >native to other languages > > * files (by filename, file/socket handle, C FILE*, C++ i

Re: Now, to try again...

2000-12-17 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 12:17 PM 12/17/00 +, David Grove wrote: >Andy Dougherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Another route to keep in mind is spending effort working on and with > > things such as perl-byacc (and maybe even the yet-to-be-written >perl-lex) > > that help turn simple "languages" into perl. > >

Re: Now, to try again...

2000-12-17 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 02:24 PM 12/17/00 -0500, Sam Tregar wrote: >On Sun, 17 Dec 2000, David Grove wrote: > > > That sounds too complex for what seems like a more simple solution. When > > you say "turn simple 'languages' into perl", that's what Dan's told me is > > my source filter. Actually, it's a bit more than a

Re: Now, to try again...

2000-12-17 Thread Sam Tregar
On Sun, 17 Dec 2000, Dan Sugalski wrote: > For my part, at least, I've been thinking of something either LISP-ish > or very simple parameter setting/checking (like stuff in, say, your > average .rc file with a little control flow thrown in) when it's > brought up. Occasionally things FORTHish, b

Re: Now, to try again...

2000-12-17 Thread Nathan Torkington
Andy Dougherty writes: > Now matter how we slice it, it's going to be very hard for the first > person to twist perl6 to parse something that is both complex and very > different from Perl6. And I'm unconvinced that this difficulty ought to > hold up the entire process. It would be quite ironic

Re: Now, to try again...

2000-12-17 Thread Nathan Torkington
Nicholas Clark writes: > Would it be sane to get the parser to return suitable information on the > source to let a syntax analyser (such as a highlighting editor) know that > character positions 5123 to 5146 are a qq() string (So it can change the > font or the colour or whatever) I think the pr

Re: Now, to try again...

2000-12-17 Thread David Grove
Sam Tregar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, 17 Dec 2000, Dan Sugalski wrote: > > > For my part, at least, I've been thinking of something either LISP-ish > > or very simple parameter setting/checking (like stuff in, say, your > > average .rc file with a little control flow thrown in) wh

Re: Now, to try again...

2000-12-17 Thread Sam Tregar
On Sun, 17 Dec 2000, David Grove wrote: > Ok, my C's rather rusty, but are we interested in parsing that? Yes. I've heard people talk about a C frontend. Will it ever see the light? I don't know. Does it matter? I don't think so. > Is Perl going to provide API to access pointers through so