Patrick R. Michaud a écrit :
> As that's being done, I suspect we may discover a far superior
> mechanism for handling optables in general, including allowing
> multiple optables.
>
The only piece of information I could find about protoregexes was
actually STD.pm. I'm sure that I don't understa
I'm a little reluctant to commit to any specific modifications
to optables at the moment because much of this will be significantly
refactored in the relatively near future as part of implementing
protoregexes and longest token matching into PGE.
As that's being done, I suspect we may discover a
Andrew Whitworth said:
> Instead of simply giving all optables a unique identifier, maybe we
> should add them to a hash with the name of the "is optable" rule
> being the key for it. That way we could get to the various optables
> by name. Languages like Perl6 that expect to only have one optable
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 7:43 AM, via RT Florian Hatat
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The diff on the code itself is actually quite small: it was mainly a
> matter of moving some code around, and adding the unique identifier
> instead of the "$optable" static name. It contains an update for
> docs/pct
# New Ticket Created by Florian Hatat
# Please include the string: [perl #59784]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=59784 >
Hi,
PGE currently only supports one operator table, while some languages
(for example
