On 6/7/02 5:44 PM, Damian Conway wrote:
> John Siracusa wrote:
>>> I have no doubt that, once Perl 6 is available, we'll see a rash of modules
>>> released in the Grammar:: namespace. Including Grammar::HTML and
>>> Grammar::XML.
>>
>> Why not just make Grammar::DTD, and then make Grammar::Genera
f
On Fri, Jun 07, 2002 at 05:10:49PM -0400, Trey Harris wrote:
> In a message dated Fri, 7 Jun 2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > The most serious objection to this was 'well, use modules for matching *ml" -
> > which simply points out that the current incarnation of perl6 regex doesn'
> > t han
John Siracusa wrote:
> > I have no doubt that, once Perl 6 is available, we'll see a rash of modules
> > released in the Grammar:: namespace. Including Grammar::HTML and Grammar::XML.
>
> Why not just make Grammar::DTD, and then make Grammar::Generator::FromDTD.
> Then use those to make all the
On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, John Siracusa wrote:
> On 6/7/02 4:48 PM, Luke Palmer wrote:
> > rule tag($name) {:w \< $name %opts:=[ (\S+)=(\S+) ]* \> }
> >
> > Then, you can match an img tag with:
> >
> > / /
> >
> > See, isn't that great?
>
> Don't you mean, "see, isn't that massively over-simplifie
On 6/7/02 4:51 PM, Damian Conway wrote:
> I have no doubt that, once Perl 6 is available, we'll see a rash of modules
> released in the Grammar:: namespace. Including Grammar::HTML and Grammar::XML.
Why not just make Grammar::DTD, and then make Grammar::Generator::FromDTD.
Then use those to make
On 6/7/02 4:48 PM, Luke Palmer wrote:
> rule tag($name) {:w \< $name %opts:=[ (\S+)=(\S+) ]* \> }
>
> Then, you can match an img tag with:
>
> / /
>
> See, isn't that great?
Don't you mean, "see, isn't that massively over-simplified?" ;)
(but yeah, we get the idea... :)
-John
In a message dated Fri, 7 Jun 2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> The most serious objection to this was 'well, use modules for matching *ml" -
> which simply points out that the current incarnation of perl6 regex doesn'
> t handle a very large class of matching problems very well.
I don't think th
> The most serious objection to this was 'well, use modules for matching *ml" -
> which simply points out that the current incarnation of perl6 regex doesn'
> t handle a very large class of matching problems very well.
The modules use regexes. They just spend more time on them and make them
bet
>> Can we please have a 'reverse x' modifier that means "treat whitespace as
>> literals"?
> I'll talk about that with Larry. If he were to approve it, it might possibly
> be :W.
Likewise, could we please have a modifier that makes <> literal, and aliases
<> as something else so *ml can match ea
On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, Dave Storrs wrote:
> Just to be sure I understood: you meant that (A) yes, you can use
> fail in a subroutine outside a regex, and (B) if you do, it is no
> different from die. Is that correct?
Depends on the caller's use of "use fatal". If they don't use fatal,
it re
On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, Damian Conway wrote:
> Dave Storrs wrote:
>
> > Somehow, this feels like we're trying to roll all of Prolog
> > into Perl,
>
> No. We're rolling in all of yacc/lex/RecDescent instead. ;-)
And this should reassure me _why_? *grin*
> > Just to verify, this:
> >
> >
On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, David Wheeler wrote:
> I was hoping for a magic array that would hold
> the actual *matches*, rather than pointers to their character positions.
A5 says that @$0 is that array.
Larry
On 6/7/02 11:21 AM, "David Wheeler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> claimed:
> Not to mention kinda useless. I was hoping for a magic array that would hold
> the actual *matches*, rather than pointers to their character positions.
And it appears to be C<@$0>. Duh. Sorry for the noise, folks.
David
--
Dav
On 6/7/02 10:12 AM, "Jonathan E. Paton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> claimed:
> A5, under "RFC 072: Variable-length lookbehind":
>
> "Did I mention that the magical @+ and @- arrays are gonna be real dead?
>Never could remember which one was which anyway..."
Not to mention kinda useless. I was hop
--- David Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/6/02 11:43 PM, "Damian Conway" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> claimed:
>
> >> / $2:=(.*?), \h* $1:=(.*) /
> >>
> >> Does this imply that $1, $2, etc are now read-write outside of regexen?
> >
> > No.
>
> Maybe this is a RTFM question, but does
On 6/6/02 11:43 PM, "Damian Conway" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> claimed:
>> / $2:=(.*?), \h* $1:=(.*) /
>>
>> Does this imply that $1, $2, etc are now read-write outside of regexen?
>
> No.
Maybe this is a RTFM question, but does Perl 6 (or Perl 5, for that matter)
have some magical array that
16 matches
Mail list logo
