On 11/22/05, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What tipped me over the edge, however, is that I want ^$x back for a
> unary operator that is short for 0..^$x, that is, the range from 0
> to $x - 1. I kept wanting such an operator in revising S09. It also
> makes it easy to write
>
> for
On Wed, 2005-11-23 at 01:39 +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> But my argument was: whenever you
> start introspecting a call frame, by almost whatever means, this will
> keep the call frame alive[1] (see Continuation or Closure). That is:
> timely destruction doesn't work for example...
Destruct
On Nov 22, 2005, at 1:40, Matt Fowles wrote:
Call Frame Access
Chip began to pontificate about how one should access call frames.
Chip
suggested using a PMC, but Leo thought that would be too slow.
No, not really. It'll be slower, yes. But my argument was: whenever you
start int
I'm changing my mind about type sigils. After playing around with ^
for a while, I find it's useful only in signatures and declarations,
and I'm generally forced to omit it when using it within inner
declarations, or it would redeclare the type. Taking that together
with the fact that it installs
On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 07:38:19PM -0400, Stevan Little wrote:
> I have been meaning to do some kind of p5 prototype of this, I can
> push it up the TODO list if it would help you.
As you can probably infer from the amount of time that it has taken for me
to realise that I've failed to reply to
On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 09:31:27AM +0200, Gaal Yahas wrote:
: In pugs, r7961:
:
: my @pats = /1/, /2/;
: say "MATCH" if 1 ~~ any @pats; # MATCH
: say "MATCH" if 0 ~~ any @pats; # no match
:
: So far so good. But:
:
: my $junc = any @pats;
: say "MATCH" if 1 ~~ $junc; # n
On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 12:48:39PM -0600, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
: On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 09:02:57AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
: > On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 10:27:17AM -0600, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
: > : On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 06:32:17PM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
: > : > We already have, from A
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 09:02:57AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 10:27:17AM -0600, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> : On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 06:32:17PM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
> : > We already have, from A5, \x[0a;0d], so you can supposedly say
> : > "\x[123a;123b;123c]"
> :
On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 10:30:20AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 09:46:59AM -0800, Dave Whipp wrote:
> : Larry Wall wrote:
> :
> : >And there aren't that many regexish languages anyway. So I think :syntax
> : >is relatively useless except for documentation, and in practice pe
On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 09:46:59AM -0800, Dave Whipp wrote:
: Larry Wall wrote:
:
: >And there aren't that many regexish languages anyway. So I think :syntax
: >is relatively useless except for documentation, and in practice people
: >will almost always omit it, which makes it even less useful, a
Larry Wall wrote:
And there aren't that many regexish languages anyway. So I think :syntax
is relatively useless except for documentation, and in practice people
will almost always omit it, which makes it even less useful, and pretty
nearly kicks it over into the category of multiplied entities
On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 08:19:04PM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
: >And perhaps we'd want a general form for specifying other
: >pattern syntaxes; i.e., :perl5 and :glob are shortcuts for
: >:syntax('perl5') and :syntax('glob') or something like that.
:
: Agreed.
But the language in the following
Patrick wrote:
Since we already have :perl5, I'd think that we'd want globbing
to be something like
rule jpeg :i :glob /*.jp{e,}g/
or, for something intra-rule-ish:
m :w / mv (:glob *.c)+ /
Here! Here!
And perhaps we'd want a general form for specifying other
pattern syntaxes; i
On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 10:12:00AM +0100, Michele Dondi wrote:
: Oh, I'm not the person you were responding to, and probably the less
: entitled one to speak in the name of everyone else here, but I feel like
: doing so to say that in all earnestness I'm quite sure no one took any
: offense out
On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 07:52:24AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
>
> I think we'll leave both _ and \_ meaning the same thing, just to avoid
> that confusion path [...]
Yay!
> : Whatever shortcuts we introduce, I'll be happy if we can just
> : rule that backslash+space (i.e., "\ ") is a literal space
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 11:25:20AM -0600, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
: On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 09:02:57AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
: > : There's also , unless someone redefines the subrule.
: >
: > But you can't use in a character class. Well, that is, unless
: > you write it:
: >
: > <+[ a
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005, Larry Wall wrote:
I would like to publicly apologize for my remarks, which were far too
harsh for the circumstances. I can only plead that I was trying to
be far too clever, and not thinking about how it would come across.
No, to be perfectly honest, it was more culpable th
On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 01:09:40AM +0100, Ruud H.G. van Tol wrote:
> 's/$/foo/' becomes 's//foo/'
> >>>
> >>> Uh, no, because is still a zero width assertion. :-)
> >>
> >> That's why I chose it. It is not at the end-of-string?
> >
> > Because ".*" matches "", // would be true at
> > every p
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 11:19:48PM +0100, Ruud H.G. van Tol wrote:
> Patrick R. Michaud:
>
> >> 's/$/foo/' becomes 's//foo/'
> >>
> >
> > Uh, no, because is still a zero width assertion. :-)
>
> That's why I chose it. It is not at the end-of-string?
Because ".*" matches "", // would be true
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 07:57:59PM +0100, Ruud H.G. van Tol wrote:
>
> There is a "[[:alpha:][:digit:]" and a "[[:alpha:][:digit]]" on the
> A5-page.
Now fixed.
> > Besides, you have to be able to distinguish
> > s/^/foo/ from s/$/foo/.
>
> 's/$/foo/' becomes 's//foo/'
>
Uh, no, because is s
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 09:02:57AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
> : There's also , unless someone redefines the subrule.
>
> But you can't use in a character class. Well, that is, unless
> you write it:
>
> <+[ a..z ]+>
>
> or some such. Maybe that's good enough.
Er, that's now <+[ a..z ]+s
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 12:08:08PM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 07:57:59PM +0100, Ruud H.G. van Tol wrote:
> : There is a "[[:alpha:][:digit:]" and a "[[:alpha:][:digit]]" on the
> : A5-page.
>
> Hmm, well, thanks--I went to fix it and I see Patrick beat me to
> the fix. But
HaloO,
Gaal Yahas wrote:
In pugs, r7961:
my @pats = /1/, /2/;
say "MATCH" if 1 ~~ any @pats; # MATCH
say "MATCH" if 0 ~~ any @pats; # no match
So far so good. But:
my $junc = any @pats;
say "MATCH" if 1 ~~ $junc; # no match
say "MATCH" if 0 ~~ $junc; # no match
23 matches
Mail list logo
