Larry wrote:
: Indeed, if Larry were to give the word, I'd be delighted to add support for
: it to the Perl6::Rules module.
Execute! (I hope that's the right word...)
I believe, Captain, the correct word would be: "Engage!"
Data^H^Hmian
On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 04:58:38PM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
: FWIW, I'm strongly in favour of adding & to rules.
:
: Indeed, if Larry were to give the word, I'd be delighted to add support for
: it to the Perl6::Rules module.
Execute! (I hope that's the right word...)
Larry
Larry noted:
> There's a lot to be said for being able to write
things like:
[ & + ]
Now I'm supposing that & binds tighter than | as usual, so the
brackets wouldn't always be necessary:
& +
|
& +
FWIW, I'm strongly in favour of adding & to rules.
Indeed, if Larry were to gi
On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 12:32:37PM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
: Now I'm supposing that & binds tighter than | as usual, so the
: brackets wouldn't always be necessary:
:
: & +
: |
: & +
Although, of course, that should probably be written:
& [ + | + ]
or really, just
& <
On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 02:42:47AM -0500, Austin Hastings wrote:
: Another hypothetical:
:
: Suppose you have a browser (which understands "language" traits)
: or a word processor (which stores "style" and/or "font" information)
: that is storing some not-text-only string-like things via scalar
:
Another hypothetical:
Suppose you have a browser (which understands "language" traits) or a word processor
(which stores "style" and/or "font" information) that is storing some not-text-only
string-like things via scalar strings+ or objectrefs.
You want to do something like "search for all occu
