On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 12:14:00PM -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
Before anyone replies, I just realized I should probably just first browse
around in parrot since regex is already implemented ;-)
No---you shouldn't do that. Regex (in languages/perl6) is a naive and
is due for a rewrite.
And I just re
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 07:49:36PM +0100, Matthijs van Duin wrote:
> >(blah blah I wrote on closures and rule-invocation)
> >
> >I'm not saying rules will be implemented in such a way, but it's the first
> >thing that comes to mind.
>
> Before anyone replies, I just realized I should probably j
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 07:49:36PM +0100, Matthijs van Duin wrote:
(blah blah I wrote on closures and rule-invocation)
I'm not saying rules will be implemented in such a way, but it's the first
thing that comes to mind.
Before anyone replies, I just realized I should probably just first browse
a
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 11:17:21AM -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
> >> > # call rule, passing Perl args
> >> >{ .name(expr) } # same thing.
> >>
> >> Considering perl can't sanely know how to backtrack into a closure,
> >> wouldn't { .name(expr) } be equal to : instead?
>
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 11:17:21AM -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
> # call rule, passing Perl args
>{ .name(expr) } # same thing.
Considering perl can't sanely know how to backtrack into a closure,
wouldn't { .name(expr) } be equal to : instead?
Nope. : is equivalent to { .n
> 1. Sub-rules and backtracking
>
> > # call rule, passing Perl args
> >{ .name(expr) } # same thing.
>
> ># call rule, passing regex arg
> >{ .name(/pat/) } # same thing.
>
> Considering perl can't sanely know how to backtrack into a closure, woul
OK, I've recently spent some intimate time with Apocalypse 5 and it has
left me with a few issues and questions.
If any of this has already been discussed, I'd appreciate some links (I've
searched google groups but haven't found anything applicable)
1. Sub-rules and backtracking
#
