Piers wrote:
> Not exactly DWIM, but how about:
>
> my $stuff = /^\s* [ "(.*?)" | (\S+) ] : { $foo := $+ }/;
>
> Assuming $+ means 'the last capture group matched' as it does now.
>
Or just:
my $stuff = /^\s* [ "$foo:=(.*?)" | $foo:=(\S+) ]/;
BTW, that doesn't actually *do* the match
In a message dated Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Janek Schleicher writes:
> Aaron Sherman wrote at Wed, 28 Aug 2002 00:34:15 +0200:
>
> > $stuff = (defined($1)?$1:$2) if /^\s*(?:"(.*?)"|(\S+))/;
>
> It gives me the idea of a missing feature:
>
> What really should be expressed is:
>
> my ($stuff) = /^\s*
Aaron Sherman wrote at Wed, 28 Aug 2002 00:34:15 +0200:
> $stuff = (defined($1)?$1:$2) if /^\s*(?:"(.*?)"|(\S+))/;
It gives me the idea of a missing feature:
What really should be expressed is:
my ($stuff) = /^\s*("°.*?"°|\S+)/;
where the ° character would mean,
"Don't capture the previou
On Wed, 28 Aug 2002, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
: Being able to specify fixed arguments after a splat looks illegal, or at
: least immoral. It opens the door to backtracking in argument parsing,
: e.g.:
:
: sub foo (*@args, &func, *@more_args, $arg, &func) { ... }
:
: > Saying specifically a list
At 5:19 PM -0700 8/28/02, Larry Wall wrote:
>On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Steffen Mueller wrote:
>: Nicholas Clark wrote:
>: [...]
>: > If the compiler were able to see that my Date $bday = 'June 25, 2002';
>: > is one statement that both types $bday as Date, and then assigns a
>: > constant to it, is it
On Wed, 28 Aug 2002, Luke Palmer wrote:
> > Second, is there a prototype-way to specify the arguments to "for"
> > (specifically, the first un-parentesized multidimensional array argument)?
> > In other words, is that kind of signature expected to be used often enough
> > to justify not forcing p
> Second, is there a prototype-way to specify the arguments to "for"
> (specifically, the first un-parentesized multidimensional array argument)?
> In other words, is that kind of signature expected to be used often enough
> to justify not forcing people to explicitly extend the grammar?
If you'r
On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Steffen Mueller wrote:
> Nicholas Clark wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 12:00:55AM +0300, Markus Laire wrote:
> >> And I'm definitely going to try any future PerlGolf challenges also
> >> in perl6.
> >
> > Is it considered better if perl6 use more characters than perl5? (i
On Wed, 28 Aug 2002, Damian Conway wrote:
> Any subroutine/function like C that has a signature (parameter list)
> that ends in a C<&sub> argument can be parsed without the trailing
> semicolon. So C's signature is:
>
> sub if (bool $condition, &block);
>
> So the trailing semicolon isn't re
On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Steffen Mueller wrote:
: Nicholas Clark wrote:
: [...]
: > If the compiler were able to see that my Date $bday = 'June 25, 2002';
: > is one statement that both types $bday as Date, and then assigns a
: > constant to it, is it possible to do the conversion of that constant
: >
On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Markus Laire wrote:
> (only 32bit numbers, modulo not fully working, no capturing regexps,
> )
Where does modulo break?
/s
On Wed, 28 Aug 2002, Thom Boyer wrote:
: Damian Conway wrote:
: > Any subroutine/function like C that has a signature (parameter list)
: > that ends in a C<&sub> argument can be parsed without the trailing
: > semicolon. So C's signature is:
: >
: > sub if (bool $condition, &block);
:
:
Nicholas Clark wrote:
[...]
> If the compiler were able to see that my Date $bday = 'June 25, 2002';
> is one statement that both types $bday as Date, and then assigns a
> constant to it, is it possible to do the conversion of that constant
> to a constant $bday object at compile time? (and hence
Nicholas Clark wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 12:00:55AM +0300, Markus Laire wrote:
>> And I'm definitely going to try any future PerlGolf challenges also
>> in perl6.
>
> Is it considered better if perl6 use more characters than perl5? (ie
> implying probably less line noise)
> or less (getting
Thom Boyer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> sub while (bool $test, &body);
> sub while (&test, &body);
>
> But neither of these really works.
>
> The first would imply that the test is evaluated only once
> (and that once is
> before 'sub while' is even called). That'd be useles
Damian Conway wrote:
> Any subroutine/function like C that has a signature (parameter list)
> that ends in a C<&sub> argument can be parsed without the trailing
> semicolon. So C's signature is:
>
> sub if (bool $condition, &block);
So what does the signature for C look like? I've been w
On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 12:00:55AM +0300, Markus Laire wrote:
> And I'm definitely going to try any future PerlGolf challenges also
> in perl6.
Is it considered better if perl6 use more characters than perl5? (ie
implying probably less line noise)
or less (getting your job done more tersely?)
I
On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 08:59:09PM -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
> > "LW" == Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> LW> On 27 Aug 2002, Uri Guttman wrote: : and quoteline might even
> LW> default to " for its delim which would make : that line:
> LW> :
> LW> : my ($fields) = /(|\S+)/
Sean O'Rourke wrote:
> I hope this is wrong, because if not, it breaks this:
>
> if 1 { do something }
> foo $x;
>
> in weird ways. Namely, it gets parsed as:
>
> if(1, sub { do something }, foo($x));
>
> which comes out as "wrong number of arguments to `if'", which is just
> str
On 28 Aug 2002 at 16:04, Steffen Mueller wrote:
> Piers Cawley wrote:
> > Uri Guttman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> ... regex code ...
> >
> > Hmm... is this the first Perl 6 golf post?
>
> Well, no, for two reasons:
> a) There's whitespace.
> b) The time's not quite ready for Perl6 golf beca
On Wed, 28 Aug 2002, Steve Fink wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 12:55:44PM -0400, Deven T. Corzine wrote:
> > On Wed, 28 Aug 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > > At 10:57 AM -0400 8/28/02, Deven T. Corzine wrote:
> >
> > On the other hand, :, ::, ::: and don't necessarily need to be a
> > problem
On Wed, 28 Aug 2002, Larry Wall wrote:
> That is a worthy consideration, but expressiveness takes precedence
> over it in this case.
I see nothing wrong with expressiveness taking precedence -- I'm only
saying that it would be best to be cognizant of any restrictions we're
hardcoding into the
On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 12:55:44PM -0400, Deven T. Corzine wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Aug 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > At 10:57 AM -0400 8/28/02, Deven T. Corzine wrote:
>
> On the other hand, :, ::, ::: and don't necessarily need to be a
> problem if they can be treated as hints that can be ignored.
On Wed, 28 Aug 2002, Larry Wall wrote:
> : (1) Can we have a ":study" modifier in Perl 6 for patterns?
> :
> : It could be a no-op if necessary, but it could take the place of Perl 5's
> : "study" operator and indicate that the programmer WANTS the pattern
> : optimized for maximum runtime spe
This is really the wrong place to be sending this. This is Perl 5 (or
maybe even Perl 4, which I don't know) code, and this is a list for
discussing the design of Perl 6. A good place to send this would
probably be [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Good Luck,
Luke
On Wed, 28 Aug 2002, frank crowley wrote:
At 10:36 AM -0700 8/28/02, Larry Wall wrote:
>On Wed, 28 Aug 2002, Deven T. Corzine wrote:
>: I'm not saying we should dump the operators -- if we get more power by
>: assuming a backtracking implementation, maybe that's a worthwhile tradeoff.
>:
>: On the other hand, if we can keep the implementa
On Wed, 28 Aug 2002, Deven T. Corzine wrote:
: I'd like to do that, if I can find the time. It would be interesting to
: make a small experimental prototype to see if DFA construction could really
: improve performance over backtracking, but it would probably need to be a
: very restricted sub
and for them to interact.
http://magicauction.netfirms.com/index.html
trying to get the preview auction link to go to
auction.cgi, and the link for new user to go to
newuser.cgi which are both in the cgi-bin
=
frank crowley
__
Do You Yahoo!?
#!/usr/local/bin/perl
$mail_prog = '/usr/lib/sendmail' ;
# This script was generated automatically by Perl
Builder(tm): http://www.solutionsoft.com
# ***ENDAUTOGEN:HEADER*** Do NOT modify this line!!
You may enter custom code after this line.
# ***AUTOGEN:INPUT*** Do NOT modify this line!! Do
#!/usr/local/bin/perl
$mail_prog = '/usr/lib/sendmail' ;
# This script was generated automatically by Perl
Builder(tm): http://www.solutionsoft.com
# ***ENDAUTOGEN:HEADER*** Do NOT modify this line!!
You may enter custom code after this line.
# ***AUTOGEN:INPUT*** Do NOT modify this line!! Do
On Wed, 28 Aug 2002, Deven T. Corzine wrote:
: I'm not saying we should dump the operators -- if we get more power by
: assuming a backtracking implementation, maybe that's a worthwhile tradeoff.
:
: On the other hand, if we can keep the implementation possibilities more
: open, that's always a
On Wednesday, August 28, 2002, at 09:56 AM, Larry Wall wrote:
> my Date $date { 'June 25, 2002' };
>
> Either way, this makes data declarations more like sub declarations
> in syntax, though the semantics of what you do with the final closure
> when are obviously different. That is, for ord
On Wed, 28 Aug 2002, Deven T. Corzine wrote:
> Would it be better for the matching of (Jun|June) to be "undefined" and
> implementation-dependent? Or is it best to require "leftmost" semantics?
For an alternation spelled out explicitly in the pattern, it seems like
undefined matching would be co
At 5:29 PM +0100 8/28/02, Nicholas Clark wrote:
>On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 12:17:55PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>> At 10:36 AM +0200 8/28/02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> > >> Will there be automatic calling of the deserialization method
>> >>> for objects, so that code like this DWIMs...
>> >
On Wed, 28 Aug 2002, David Wheeler wrote:
: I have to agree with this. Ideally, IMO, there'd be some magic going on
: behind the scenes (maybe with a pragma?) that automatically typed
: variables so we wouldn't have to be so redundant, the code would look
: more like (most) Perl 5 OO stuff, and
On Wed, 28 Aug 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 10:57 AM -0400 8/28/02, Deven T. Corzine wrote:
> >Would it be _possible_ to create a non-backtracking implementation of a
> >Perl 6 pattern engine, or does the existence of backtracking-related
> >operators preclude this possibility in advance?
>
>
On 28 Aug 2002, Simon Cozens wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Deven T. Corzine) writes:
> > Would it be _possible_ to create a non-backtracking implementation of a
> > Perl 6 pattern engine
>
> I don't believe that it is, but not just because of : and friends.
> Why does it matter?
I'm not saying w
On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 12:17:55PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 10:36 AM +0200 8/28/02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >> Will there be automatic calling of the deserialization method
> >>> for objects, so that code like this DWIMs...
> >
> >>> my Date $bday = 'June 25, 2002';
> >
> >> Err..
At 10:57 AM -0400 8/28/02, Deven T. Corzine wrote:
>Would it be _possible_ to create a non-backtracking implementation of a
>Perl 6 pattern engine, or does the existence of backtracking-related
>operators preclude this possibility in advance?
In general, no of course it's not possible to create a
At 10:36 AM +0200 8/28/02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> Will there be automatic calling of the deserialization method
>>> for objects, so that code like this DWIMs...
>
>>> my Date $bday = 'June 25, 2002';
>
>> Err... what do you mean it to do?
>
>Wow, this is nice. He means (I think) that t
On Wednesday, August 28, 2002, at 06:11 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Is there some kind of third option? I have to admit I've always found
> Java
> commands like "Date bday = new Date('June 25, 2002')" somehow
> redundant.
I have to agree with this. Ideally, IMO, there'd be some magic goi
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Wow, this is nice. He means (I think) that this will be translated into
>> my Date $bday = Date->new('June 25, 2002');
I don't think this is going to work. First off, there
is no predefined constructor name in Perl. Secondly,
you can have multiple constructors in t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Deven T. Corzine) writes:
> Would it be _possible_ to create a non-backtracking implementation of a
> Perl 6 pattern engine
I don't believe that it is, but not just because of : and friends.
Why does it matter?
--
"Life sucks, but it's better than the alternative."
-- Peter
I have no objection to pattern operators like ::: in principle, but I do
have a potential concern about them.
Given that the operators are actually defined in terms of "backtracking"
within the RE engine, does this constrain the implementation such that it
MUST be a backtracking implementation
Piers Cawley wrote:
> Uri Guttman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
{...]
>> couldn't that be reduced to:
>>
>> m{^\s* $stuff := [ "(.*?)" | (\S+) ] };
>>
>> the | will only return one of the grabbed chunks and the result of
>> the [] group would be assigned to $stuff.
>
> Hmm... is this the first P
In a message dated 28 Aug 2002, Aaron Sherman writes:
> Ok, just to be certain:
>
> $_ = "0";
> my $zilch = /0/ || 1;
>
> Is $zilch C<"0"> or 8?
8? How do you get 8? You'd get a result object which stringified was "0"
and booleanfied was true. So here, you'd get a result object vag
On Wed, 2002-08-28 at 03:23, Trey Harris wrote:
> Note--no parens around $field. We're not "capturing" here, not in the
> Perl 5 sense, anyway.
>
> When a pattern consisting of only a named rule invokation (possibly
> quantified) matches, it returns the result object, which in boolean
> context
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Wow, this is nice. He means (I think) that this will be translated into
> my Date $bday = Date->new('June 25, 2002');
I rather like it too, but it hinges on how strictly typing is enforced. If
typing is strictly enforced then it works because the VM can always know
th
>> Will there be automatic calling of the deserialization method
>> for objects, so that code like this DWIMs...
>> my Date $bday = 'June 25, 2002';
> Err... what do you mean it to do?
Wow, this is nice. He means (I think) that this will be translated into
my Date $bday = Date->new('June 25
In a message dated 27 Aug 2002, Uri Guttman writes:
> > "LW" == Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> LW> On 27 Aug 2002, Uri Guttman wrote: : and quoteline might even
> LW> default to " for its delim which would make : that line:
> LW> :
> LW> : my ($fields) = /(|\S+)/;
>
> LW
50 matches
Mail list logo
