On Sat, 3 Aug 2002, Damian Conway wrote:
> > don't know exactly what the syntax for adding /* */ will be
>
> Something like this:
>
> grammar Perl::With::Ugly::C::Comments is Perl {
>
> rule ws { | }
>
> rule ugly_c_comment {
> /\* [ .*
According to Damian Conway:
> {
> temp sub false() {0}
> # etc.
> }
I'm a bit concerned about what that would do to subroutines in other
modules called during the block's execution. Perhaps "my sub" instead?
PS: I wonder if the names would be &FALSE and &
Miko O'Sullivan wrote:
> OK, would that notation ( @arr[] = $var ) be something that could be added
> by a module, in the same way that operators and /* */ will be addable? I
> don't know exactly what the syntax for adding /* */ will be
Something like this:
grammar Perl::With::Ugly::C:
At 8:53 AM -0400 8/2/02, Trey Harris wrote:
>(With the possible exception of modules that disobey the laws of physics,
>but I'm not putting anything past Larry... no strict 'physics' ;)
Yeek! Hopefully Larry'll forbear--while he may be able to pull that
one off, I'm afraid I'm not up to the task
On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, Nicholas Clark wrote:
: On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 08:53:51AM -0400, Trey Harris wrote:
: > (With the possible exception of modules that disobey the laws of physics,
: > but I'm not putting anything past Larry... no strict 'physics' ;)
:
: Yay!
:
: $ cat infinite_compression.pl
On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 08:53:51AM -0400, Trey Harris wrote:
> You've often asked this list, "will doing X in a module be possible?"
> Consider the things that Damian's already done with modules in Perl 5. I
> think Damian's involvement in Perl 6 if nothing else will insure that, no
> matter what
In a message dated Fri, 2 Aug 2002, Miko O'Sullivan writes:
> OK, would that notation ( @arr[] = $var ) be something that could be added
> by a module, in the same way that operators and /* */ will be addable?
I don't think we've seen too much about how Larry plans to do
Perl-munging-Perl except
> > - There's already a huge population of programmers out there who already
use
> > this notation. I frankly admit that I think of PHP as a great idea that
> > wasn't done quite right.
>
> I agree. Including that notation! ;-)
Touche. Darn it's difficult disagreeing with pithy people. :-)
OK
perl 5 already does that:
print "'$_' " foreach split /(=)/, "rank=?";
print "\n";
print "'$_' " foreach split /\s*(=)\s*/, "rank = ?";
print "\n";
# Output:
# 'rank' '=' '?'
# 'rank' '=' '?'
Greetings,
Christian
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.web42.com/crenz/ - http://www.web42.com/
"
