On 5/10/06, Austin Hastings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Mark A. Biggar wrote:
> Use hyper compare ops to select what you want followed by using filter
> to prune out the unwanted.
>
> filter gives you with scan:
>
> filter (list [<] @array) @array ==>
> first monotonically increasi
Damian Conway skribis 2006-05-10 18:07 (+1000):
> > More than that, the current 'rule' and 'regex' can both be used inside
> > and outside a grammar. If we were to take the 'sub'/'method' pattern, then
> > 'rule' should never be allowed outside a grammar,
> I entirely agree.
I don't. While disallo
In the previous mail I accidentally read [<=] as [>=]
On 5/10/06, Markus Laire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > filter (list [<=] @array) @array ==>
> > first monotonically non-decreasing run in @array
>
> So @array = (1 0 -1 -2 -1 -3) ==> (1, -1) is monotonically non-decreasing?
And here I mis-read < as <=.
Perhaps I should stop "fixing", as I'm making too many errors here...
On 5/10/06, Markus Laire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > filter (list [<] @array) @array ==>
> > first monotonically increasing run in @array
> >
> This seems false. @array = (1 2 2
On 5/9/06, Jonathan Scott Duff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 06:07:26PM +0300, Markus Laire wrote:
> ps. Should first element of scan be 0-argument or 1-argument case.
> i.e. should list([+] 1) return (0, 1) or (1)
I noticed this in earlier posts and thought it odd that anyo
Allison wrote:
I've never met anyone who *voluntarily* added
the 'p'. ;-)
You've spent too much time in the U.S. ;)
And Australia. I don't know where the silent 'p' comes from but it sure ain't
the New World.
Picking names that mean what they say is important in Perl. It's why we have
'
> qX ::= "q:x:y:z";
>
> as a simple, argumentless "word" macro.
But would that DWIM when I come to write
qX(stuff, specifically not an adverb argument);
?
--
"The rules of programming are transitory; only Tao is eternal.
Therefore you must contemplate Tao before you receive en
On Wed, 10 May 2006, Damian Conway wrote:
> Allison wrote:
>
> I've never met anyone who *voluntarily* added
> the 'p'. ;-)
You've spent too much time in the U.S. ;)
> > and the fact that everyone knows 'regex(p)'
> > means "regular expression" no matter how may times we say it doesn't.
>
> Su
Patrick R.Michaud (via RT) wrote:
# New Ticket Created by Patrick R. Michaud
# Please include the string: [perl #39072]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# https://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=39072 >
I've been unable to get pheme to run on my sy
Patrick R.Michaud (via RT) wrote:
If a subclass doesn't define an "__init" method, then creating
a new instance of the subclass results in multiple calls to
the base class "__init" method.
Fixed, r12594. (__init was searched in parents with find_method, which
also searched parents ...)
I'v
Allison Randal schreef:
> Damian:
>> "Match" is a better word for what comes back from
>> a regex match (what we currently refer to as a Capture, which is
>> okay too).
>
> I agree there. I still prefer 'rule'.
Maybe matex (mat-ex) for "matching expression" and, within that,
capex/captex (cap-ex/
Damian Conway schreef:
> grammar Perl6 is skip(/[+ | \# | \# \N]+/) {
> ...
> }
I think that first "+" is superfluous.
Doubly so if already stands for the run of all consecutive
word-separators.
--
Groet, Ruud
On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 06:07:54PM +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
>
> >Including :skip(//). Yes, agreed, it's a huge
> >improvement. I'd be more comfortable if the default rule to
> >use for skipping was named instead of .
> >(On IRC was also proposed, but the connection between
> >:skip and is
On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 11:25:26AM +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
: True. "Token" is the wrong word for another reason: a token is a
: segments component of the input stream, *not* a rule for matching
: segmented components of the input stream. The correct term for that is
: "terminal". So a suitable
# New Ticket Created by Leopold Toetsch
# Please include the string: [perl #39117]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# https://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=39117 >
See also http://use.perl.org/articles/06/05/03/1325204.shtml
19:24 <@leo> Andy: btw
On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 10:30:42AM -0700, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> # New Ticket Created by Leopold Toetsch
> # Please include the string: [perl #39117]
> # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
> # https://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=39117 >
>
>
> See a
Larry wrote:
So anyway, I think "token" is sufficiently close to what we want
it to mean that we can force it to mean that, and it's sufficiently
orphaned that few people are going to complain about impressing it
into forced labor.
I'm perfectly fine with that. To quote myself out of context:
> "AR" == Allison Randal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
AR> Including :skip(//). Yes, agreed, it's a huge
AR> improvement. I'd be more comfortable if the default rule to use
AR> for skipping was named instead of . (On IRC was
AR> also proposed, but the connection between :skip and is
To summarize a phone call today, the more intelligent defaults we add to
differently named rule keywords the more comfortable I am with having
different names. So, here's what we have so far (posted both as an FYI
and to confirm that we have the coherent solution I think we have):
rule:
- Has
On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 05:58:57PM -0700, Allison Randal wrote:
> To summarize a phone call today, the more intelligent defaults we add to
> differently named rule keywords the more comfortable I am with having
> different names. So, here's what we have so far (posted both as an FYI
> and to con
Allison admirably summarized:
rule:
regex:
token:
skip:
- We keep :words as shorthand for :skip(//)
- And :skip is shorthand for :skip(//)
...where defaults to , but is distinct from it (i.e. it can be
redefined independently).
- To change skipping behavior: a) override in your gra
21 matches
Mail list logo
