Erik Steven Harrison henched:
> Ahhh, duh . . . Docter Claw . . .er Conway, uh, the Python always throws up
> Perl Coders . . . Shoulds we maybe bash him with the Giant Shell, or TCL him
> to death . . .
Dammit, you fools! Do I have to think of *everything*??? Just tie him to a
steel bench and
Trey Harris wrote:
> On second reading, it occurs to me that this wouldn't work quite right,
> because the :w would imply a \s+ between and , between
> the equals, and before the .
No. Under :w you get \s+ between literal sequences that are potential identifiers, and
\s* between anything else.
Uri Guttman asked:
> now, why does $0.{comment} refer to the internal regex and not the outer
> one?
Technically, $0 refers to the *match object* of the inner regex, not the inner regex
itself.
> is it because of it being in the closure?
Yes. And because $0 is lexically scoped.
> could yo
>
>Ah, Mr Wardley, I see you have finally apprehended the magnitude of my
>nefarious plan. Five years of plotting and scheming, of gaining influence and
>gradually insinuating my dastardly code creations into the community
>consciousness: all
>about to culminate in unleashing of Perl 6 on an uns
In a message dated Sun, 9 Jun 2002, Damian Conway writes:
> Trey Harris wrote:
> > rule parsetag :w {
> > $tagname :=
> > %attrs := [ () =
> > ()
> > ]*
> >/?
> >
> > }
On second reading, it occurs to me that this wouldn't work
At 10:21 PM 6/9/2002 +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
>Richard Nuttall wrote:
> > Grammar::Python, Grammar::Ruby, Grammar::PHP ?
>
>I should imagine that the first two at least would be very likely, given that
>we wish both of those languages to run on top of Parrot.
Given that by the time Parrot is b
like many of you i am fascinated by A5 but also my brain is overwhelmed
by it. i love that /x is the default but i would ask all of you to use
those comments liberally, even with trivial regexes while we all learn
this stuff. even simple ones are tricky looking if you don't grok the
syntax and se
Damian Conway:
# Richard Nuttall 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::Romana, Grammar::Klingon, Grammar::Buffy,
# Grammer::Mispelt,
# > > and others... :-)
# >
# > G
Richard Nuttall 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::Romana,
> > Grammar::Klingon, Grammar::Buffy, Grammer::Mispelt, and others... :-)
>
> Grammar::Python, Grammar::Ruby, Grammar::
> I have no doubt that, once Perl 6 is available, we'll see a
> rash of modules released in the Grammar:: namespace.
> Including Grammar::Romana,
> Grammar::Klingon, Grammar::Buffy, Grammer::Mispelt, and others... :-)
Grammar::Python, Grammar::Ruby, Grammar::PHP ?
R.
> I have no doubt that, once Perl 6 is available, we'll see a rash of modules
> released in the Grammar:: namespace. Including Grammar::Romana,
> Grammar::Klingon, Grammar::Buffy, Grammer::Mispelt, and others... :-)
Ah, Mr Wardley, I see you have finally apprehended the magnitude of my
nefarious
On Sat, Jun 08, 2002 at 06:51:19AM +1000, 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.
I have no doubt that, once Perl 6 is available, we'll see a rash of module
12 matches
Mail list logo
