On Thu, 4 Jul 2002, Ashley Winters wrote:
: On Thursday 04 July 2002 10:47 am, Larry Wall wrote:
: > On Thu, 4 Jul 2002, Ashley Winters wrote:
: > So I'd guess that we just don't talk about :-1, but rather say that
: >
: > <*$min..$max>
: >
: > is naturally greedy, and as with any quantifier y
On Thursday 04 July 2002 11:07 am, Ashley Winters wrote:
>
> I would expect /a<*1..2>?/ to mean /[a<*1..2>]?/ just looking at it. How
> can ? ever mean non-greedy unless it follows a metachar <[*+?]>?
Perhaps I can respond to my own question. In /.+?/ . is an assertion, + is an
assertion, and ?
At 8:29 AM -0700 7/4/02, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
>Sick. Anyways, I think it seems like a more natural way to do things than
>traditional call/cc. "$block.continuation" reads as "where do I go after
>$block?"; "$block.continuation($foo)" as "after executing $block, proceed
>on to $foo"; "(call/cc fu
On Thursday 04 July 2002 10:47 am, Larry Wall wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Jul 2002, Ashley Winters wrote:
> So I'd guess that we just don't talk about :-1, but rather say that
>
> <*$min..$max>
>
> is naturally greedy, and as with any quantifier you write
>
> <*$min..$max>?
>
> to get minimal match
On Thu, 4 Jul 2002, Ashley Winters wrote:
: I was pondering how to implement the apocalypse 5 stuff (only pondering) and I
: was wondering if could be legal, indicating a greedy match.
:
: * =
: + =
: ? = <1,0>
: *? = <0,Inf>
: +? = <1,Inf>
: ?? = <0,1>
We could autoreverse, but it'd be a ba
I was pondering how to implement the apocalypse 5 stuff (only pondering) and I
was wondering if could be legal, indicating a greedy match.
* =
+ =
? = <1,0>
*? = <0,Inf>
+? = <1,Inf>
?? = <0,1>
Speaking of the range assertion, is there anything other than ? There
used to be discussion on th
On 4 Jul 2002, Erik [ISO-8859-1] Bågfors wrote:
: On Thu, 2002-07-04 at 11:19, Andy Wardley wrote:
: > I personally believe this approach is flawed, especially considering the fact
: > that there is no way (that I know of) to force block parameters to be truly
: > lexically scoped or temporary (i
On 4 Jul 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > At 8:32 AM +0100 7/3/02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > >For true scariness, consider:
> > >
> > > $sub.current_continuation($new_continuation);
> > >
> > Some days you really, really scare me Piers...
|Comments (otherwise you have things pretty much right):
]- that is good :")
|
|> Every subrotine or variable or method or object can have a "notes" (out of bound
|data)
|out-of-band data
]- yep
|> we can even have hyper-assignment :
|>
|> my ($a, $b) ^= new Foo;
|
|This is unlikely to do w
On Thu, 2002-07-04 at 11:19, Andy Wardley wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 03:20:35PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > I'm pretty sure the iterators they build are just closures with named
> > arguments, and behave as any other closure would behave.
>
> Not quite. Ruby iterators expect a block.
On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 03:20:35PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> I'm pretty sure the iterators they build are just closures with named
> arguments, and behave as any other closure would behave.
Not quite. Ruby iterators expect a block. This is very much like a closure
except that block paramet
11 matches
Mail list logo
