On Fri, Nov 26, 2004 at 07:31:09PM +0100, Juerd wrote:
: Larry Wall skribis 2004-11-26 9:33 (-0800):
: > but that doesn't give you protection from other kinds of interpolation.
: > I think we need two more adverbs that add the special features of qx and qw,
: > so that you could write that: q:x/ec
James Mastros skribis 2004-11-26 14:36 (+0100):
> And user-defined prototypes that change when the argument list of a
> function ends, that is. If we forced the argument list for all
> functions to have parens (including empty parens for argument less
> functions), then we'd be OK, I'm fairly c
Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
All the handwaving in the world won't fix this. As long as we have
dual-natured characters like /, and user-defined prototypes, Perl
cannot be lexed without also parsing, and therefore without also
running BEGIN blocks.
And user-defined prototypes that change when the arg
Larry Wall skribis 2004-11-26 9:33 (-0800):
> but that doesn't give you protection from other kinds of interpolation.
> I think we need two more adverbs that add the special features of qx and qw,
> so that you could write that: q:x/echo $VAR/ where ordinary qx/$cmd/
> is short for qq:x/$cmd/ Like
On Fri, Nov 26, 2004 at 07:32:58AM +0300, Alexey Trofimenko wrote:
: ah, I forget, how could I do qx'echo $VAR' in Perl6? something like
: qx:noparse 'echo $VAR' ?
Hmm, well, with the currently defined adverbs you'd have to say
qx:s(0)'echo $VAR'
but that doesn't give you protection from o
On Fri, Nov 26, 2004 at 10:29:52AM +0300, Alexey Trofimenko wrote:
: I'm talking about unifying namespaces of arrays, hashes and scalars. I
: could swear i've seen some RFC about it..
Yes that's RFC 9, which was discussed and rejected long ago in A2.
I just find that I prefer to think of the sig
Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
"Matthew" == Matthew Walton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Matthew> Perl 6 has formal parameters for subs, methods etc. I don't see any
Matthew> mention of Perl 5-style prototypes in S6, and I honestly can't see how
Matthew> they could possibly fit with formal parameters. Ho
> "Matthew" == Matthew Walton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Matthew> Perl 6 has formal parameters for subs, methods etc. I don't see any
Matthew> mention of Perl 5-style prototypes in S6, and I honestly can't see how
Matthew> they could possibly fit with formal parameters. Hopefully Larry or
Mat
Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
"Matthew" == Matthew Walton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Matthew> So you're saying that in Perl 6 it will be entirely impossible to
Matthew> determine if / appears as the division operator or as the beginning of
Matthew> a regex from a purely syntactic examination of the s
> "Matthew" == Matthew Walton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Matthew> So you're saying that in Perl 6 it will be entirely impossible to
Matthew> determine if / appears as the division operator or as the beginning of
Matthew> a regex from a purely syntactic examination of the source code?
Yes.
M
Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
"Luke" == Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Luke> But you don't really need to parse to syntax highlight, either. You
Luke> just need to tokenize.
Unfortunately, to tokenize, you also have to know the state of the parse.
As long as / is both "divide" and "begin reg
> "Luke" == Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Luke> But you don't really need to parse to syntax highlight, either. You
Luke> just need to tokenize.
Unfortunately, to tokenize, you also have to know the state of the parse.
As long as / is both "divide" and "begin regex", you're toasted
12 matches
Mail list logo
