Re: m:foobar syntax

2002-06-13 Thread Damian Conway
> I came across this problem when writing the vim syntax file: > > How can we tell the difference between these?: > > m:option(pattern) > m:option(argument)/pattern/ Easy. As A5 states, (...) are no longer leagal regex delimiters. So the first is a syntax error. :-) Damian

RE: foobar syntax

2002-06-13 Thread Brent Dax
Luke Palmer: # I came across this problem when writing the vim syntax file: # # How can we tell the difference between these?: # # m:option(pattern) # m:option(argument)/pattern/ The difference is that the first is a syntax error. :^) I think it says that '(' is no longer a valid

m:foobar syntax

2002-06-13 Thread Luke Palmer
I came across this problem when writing the vim syntax file: How can we tell the difference between these?: m:option(pattern) m:option(argument)/pattern/ Luke

RE: lex behavior

2002-06-13 Thread Larry Wall
On Thu, 13 Jun 2002, David Whipp wrote: : Second, we should eliminate as much of the syntactic noise as possible: : : : : would be nice -- with parenthesis, or the like, needed only when things : become ambiguous. I think, though am not sure, that having whitespace act as : an arglist separat

RE: lex behavior

2002-06-13 Thread David Whipp
Luke Palmer wrote: > So there's no elegant way the new regexes support it? > That's a shame. seems fairly elegant to me, with 2 caveats: First, we need assertions as part of the default library. I.e. we shouldn't need a C for things like min and max. Second, we should eliminate as much of

Re: lex behavior

2002-06-13 Thread Luke Palmer
I figured that (I actually did it, in a less-pretty form, in my early Perl days when I wrote a syntax highlighter for my website). So there's no elegant way the new regexes support it? That's a shame. But I see now how state objects are a very cool idea. Oh, and I'd just thought I'd let ever

RE: lex behavior

2002-06-13 Thread Brent Dax
Damian Conway: # > I'm still unclear as to how you implement lex-like longest # token rule # > with P6 regexes. If the | operator grabs the first one it matches, # > how do I match "bacamus" out of this?: # > # > "bacamus" =~ / b.*a | b.*s / # # Borrow this trick from Parse::RecDesce

Re: lex behavior

2002-06-13 Thread Damian Conway
> I'm still unclear as to how you implement lex-like longest token rule with > P6 regexes. If the | operator grabs the first one it matches, how do I > match "bacamus" out of this?: > > "bacamus" =~ / b.*a | b.*s / Borrow this trick from Parse::RecDescent: rule max (*@candidate

lex behavior

2002-06-13 Thread Luke Palmer
I'm still unclear as to how you implement lex-like longest token rule with P6 regexes. If the | operator grabs the first one it matches, how do I match "bacamus" out of this?: "bacamus" =~ / b.*a | b.*s / Luke