> I recently discovered a CPAN module called WhatIf
> (http://search.cpan.org/author/SIMONW/Whatif-1.01/). This module has
> the ability to provide rollback functionality for arbitrary code.
Crazy... I was just thinking about this for an experimental language
called "Snapshot" I'm about to imple
--- Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[extremely large *SNIP*]
> Maybe the "|"/"||" distinction isn't needed, and we just need a
> declarator on rules that says they are side-effect-free, and can thus
> be optimized.
[snip]
> I like this solution better than making a new operator. In Perl
>
Yary Hluchan wrote:
making *productions* of strings/sounds/whatever that could possibly
match the regular expression?
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this the :any switch of apoc 5?
http://www.perl.com/pub/a/2002/06/26/synopsis5.html
Not really, unless the input string is infinite!
Well, t
> --- "Adam D. Lopresto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I propose that since the empty pattern is no longer legal (and
> > about time), we use "|" in patterns to indicate alternation without
> > preference, and "||" to indicate "try the first, then the second,
> > etc".
>
> Hmm
> A neat idea,
Joseph F. Ryan wrote:
Luke Palmer wrote:
On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 07:29:37AM -0800, Austin Hastings wrote:
This has been alluded to before.
What would /A*B*/ produce?
Because if you were just processing the rex, I think you'd have to
finish generating all possibilities of A* before you began
Luke Palmer wrote:
On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 07:29:37AM -0800, Austin Hastings wrote:
This has been alluded to before.
What would /A*B*/ produce?
Because if you were just processing the rex, I think you'd have to
finish generating all possibilities of A* before you began iterating
over B*...
--- Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For anything other than existential issues, I believe that
> most arguments about the future containing the words "either",
> "or", "both", or "neither" are likely to be wrong. In
> particular, human psychology is rarely about the extremes
> of binary lo
On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 08:37:46PM +0100, Dave Mitchell wrote:
: On Tue, Apr 01, 2003 at 08:44:25AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
: > There isn't any, particularly. We're doing preemptive threads. It
: > isn't up for negotiation. This is one of the few things where I truly
: > don't care what people
On Fri, Apr 04, 2003 at 10:40:49AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
> Yes, though it's usually been mentioned with respect to things like:
>
> my ($a,$b,$c) is constant = abc();
>
> However, I would personally go with the prefix zone macros before using
> distributed traits, just to get the zone inf
On Fri, Apr 04, 2003 at 07:09:55AM -0800, David Storrs wrote:
: On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 12:18:47PM -0800, Paul wrote:
:
: > I think Larry's accomodating everybody, here.
: > Those of us who want to play with the tinkertoys will probably enjoy
: > the whole box, even the little widgets that take us
On Thu, 3 Apr 2003, mlazzaro wrote:
> Yes. I expect that internally, that's how it will work. (And agreed,
> C<.ref> is probably a good name.)
>
> My concern with explicitly comparing refs in order to compare identity
> is a philosophical one. It may be perfectly acceptable to do it via
>
>
--- mlazzaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Austin Hastings wrote:
> > It has been pointed out once already that we already talked about
> > this, and I for one am in favor of the general version of it.
> > The original discussion posited an "adverbial comparison", viz:
> > C<$a eq:ref $b>. Which, l
On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 12:18:47PM -0800, Paul wrote:
> I think Larry's accomodating everybody, here.
> Those of us who want to play with the tinkertoys will probably enjoy
> the whole box, even the little widgets that take us a while to
> identify.
Agreed. But I'd like to keep the identificati
--- "Adam D. Lopresto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I propose that since the empty pattern is no longer legal (and
> about time), we use "|" in patterns to indicate alternation without
> preference, and "||" to indicate "try the first, then the second,
> etc".
Hmm
A neat idea, but can you el
Yary Hluchan writes:
> a = arcadi shehter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> a>I think this was already discussed once and then it was proposed to
> a>attach a property to characters of the string
> a>
> a> sub peek_at_sky {
> a>
> a> my Color @numbers = peek_with_some_hardware;
> a>
> a> my $
I recently discovered a CPAN module called WhatIf
(http://search.cpan.org/author/SIMONW/Whatif-1.01/). This module has
the ability to provide rollback functionality for arbitrary code.
I don't really understand continuations yet (although I'm reading up
on them), so perhaps they would allow this
> Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 07:29:37AM -0800, Austin Hastings wrote:
> >> >This has been alluded to before.
> >> >
> >> >What would /A*B*/ produce?
> >> >
> >> >Because if you were just processing the rex, I think you'd have to
> >> >finish generating a
On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 07:30:10AM -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
> > just an aside, and a bit off-topic, but has anybody considered
> > hijacking the regular expression engine in perl6 and turning it into
> > its opposite, namely making *productions* of strings/sounds/whatever
> > that could possibly m
On Tue, Apr 01, 2003 at 08:44:25AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> There isn't any, particularly. We're doing preemptive threads. It
> isn't up for negotiation. This is one of the few things where I truly
> don't care what people's opinions on the matter are.
Sorry, I haven't been following this to
I've had an idea brewing for a while, and since talk seems to have turned
to reg^H^H^Hpatterns and rules again, I figured this might be the time to
mention it.
A while ago someone asked about whether backtracking semantics are
mandatory in any implementation, or whether it would be legal to build
> > use Permutations <>;
> >
> > # Generate all strings of length $n
> > method Rule::Group::generate(Int $n) { # Type sprinkles :)
> > compositions($n, [EMAIL PROTECTED]) ==> map {
> > my @rets = map {
> > $^atom.generate($^n)
> > } zi
Austin Hastings wrote:
> It has been pointed out once already that we already talked about this,
> and I for one am in favor of the general version of it.
>
> The original discussion posited an "adverbial comparison", viz:
> C<$a eq:ref $b>. Which, looking at your proposal, is very close to
> C<$a
22 matches
Mail list logo
