--- 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
>
> --- "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,
--- "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
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
