On Sat, 12 Jan 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 09:05 PM 1/11/2002 -0600, David M. Lloyd wrote:
> >I have a design question here. Why did we take the approach of having a
> >match method on every single vtable, instead of having a vtable for
> >regular expressions, and have regex be an object (lik
At 10:23 AM 1/12/2002 -0600, David M. Lloyd wrote:
>On Sat, 12 Jan 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
> > At 09:05 PM 1/11/2002 -0600, David M. Lloyd wrote:
> > >I have a design question here. Why did we take the approach of having a
> > >match method on every single vtable, instead of having a vtable f
On Sat, 12 Jan 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 10:23 AM 1/12/2002 -0600, David M. Lloyd wrote:
> >On Sat, 12 Jan 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >
> > > At 09:05 PM 1/11/2002 -0600, David M. Lloyd wrote:
> > > >I have a design question here. Why did we take the approach of having a
> > > >match metho
At 09:05 PM 1/11/2002 -0600, David M. Lloyd wrote:
>I have a design question here. Why did we take the approach of having a
>match method on every single vtable, instead of having a vtable for
>regular expressions, and have regex be an object (like Perl 5)?
So we could do:
@results = @foo ^=
Dan Sugalski:
# At 10:23 AM 1/12/2002 -0600, David M. Lloyd wrote:
# >On Sat, 12 Jan 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
# >
# > > At 09:05 PM 1/11/2002 -0600, David M. Lloyd wrote:
# > > >I have a design question here. Why did we take the
# approach of having a
# > > >match method on every single vtable,
