Re: Apoc 5 questions/comments

2002-06-11 Thread Luke Palmer
> > > Dave Storrs wrote: > > > Can we please have a 'reverse x' modifier that means "treat whitespace as > > > literals"? Yes, we are living in a Unicode world now and your data could > > > > > > /FATAL ERROR\:Process (\d+) received signal\: (\d+)/ > > > > I don't see how this example is near

Re: Apoc 5 questions/comments

2002-06-11 Thread Piers Cawley
Andy Wardley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sat, Jun 08, 2002 at 06:51:19AM +1000, Damian Conway wrote: >> I have no doubt that, once Perl 6 is available, we'll see a rash of >> modules released in the Grammar:: namespace. Including >> Grammar::HTML and Grammar::XML. > > I have no doubt that, o

Re: Apoc 5 questions/comments

2002-06-10 Thread Damian Conway
Jonathan Scott Duff wrote: > > > rule val { > > > [ # quoted > > >$b := <['"]> > > >( [ \\. | . ]*? ) > > >$b > > > ] | # or not > > >(\H+) > > > } > > > > Not quite. Assigning to $b is a capture. > > I'm confused. The examples in A5 all show $var := (pa

Re: Apoc 5 questions/comments

2002-06-10 Thread Dave Storrs
On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, Luke Palmer wrote: > > Dave Storrs wrote: > > Can we please have a 'reverse x' modifier that means "treat whitespace as > > literals"? Yes, we are living in a Unicode world now and your data could > > > > /FATAL ERROR\:Process (\d+) received signal\: (\d+)/ > > I don't

Re: Apoc 5 questions/comments

2002-06-10 Thread Dave Storrs
On Mon, 10 Jun 2002, Larry Wall wrote: > On Mon, 10 Jun 2002, Dave Storrs wrote: > > > > > I assume that 'fatal.pm' is a new pragma. > > Already exists for Perl 5, actually. *blush* Must have missed it. Drat, and I just finished rereading Camel III. Apologies. Dave

Re: Apoc 5 questions/comments

2002-06-10 Thread Larry Wall
On Mon, 10 Jun 2002, Dave Storrs wrote: > > I assume that 'fatal.pm' is a new pragma. Already exists for Perl 5, actually. > 1) What (if anything) does it do, aside from turning 'fail' into a fatal > exception when used outside a regex? What fatal currently does is wrap built-ins that might r

Re: Apoc 5 questions/comments

2002-06-10 Thread Dave Storrs
I assume that 'fatal.pm' is a new pragma. 1) What (if anything) does it do, aside from turning 'fail' into a fatal exception when used outside a regex? 2) Do you need to use it before you can (usefully) use 'fail' INSIDE a regex? (I would assume not, but thought I'd check.) Dave On Fri, 7

Re: Apoc 5 questions/comments

2002-06-10 Thread Jonathan Scott Duff
On Sun, Jun 09, 2002 at 03:34:16PM +1000, Damian Conway wrote: > Trey Harris wrote: > > rule val { > > [ # quoted > >$b := <['"]> > >( [ \\. | . ]*? ) > >$b > > ] | # or not > >(\H+) > > } > > Not quite. Assigning to $b is a capture. I'm confused. The e

Re: Apoc 5 questions/comments

2002-06-10 Thread Ariel Scolnicov
Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> outlined his plans for world domination: [...] > > Dammit, you fools! Do I have to think of *everything*??? Just tie him to a > steel bench and apply the Ruby laser! > > I do apologize, Mr Wardley. Good evil assistants are just impossible to get > these days.

Re: Apoc 5 questions/comments

2002-06-09 Thread Damian Conway
Erik Steven Harrison henched: > Ahhh, duh . . . Docter Claw . . .er Conway, uh, the Python always throws up > Perl Coders . . . Shoulds we maybe bash him with the Giant Shell, or TCL him > to death . . . Dammit, you fools! Do I have to think of *everything*??? Just tie him to a steel bench and

Re: Apoc 5 questions/comments

2002-06-09 Thread Damian Conway
Trey Harris wrote: > On second reading, it occurs to me that this wouldn't work quite right, > because the :w would imply a \s+ between and , between > the equals, and before the . No. Under :w you get \s+ between literal sequences that are potential identifiers, and \s* between anything else.

Re: Apoc 5 questions/comments

2002-06-09 Thread Erik Steven Harrison
> >Ah, Mr Wardley, I see you have finally apprehended the magnitude of my >nefarious plan. Five years of plotting and scheming, of gaining influence and >gradually insinuating my dastardly code creations into the community >consciousness: all >about to culminate in unleashing of Perl 6 on an uns

Re: Apoc 5 questions/comments

2002-06-09 Thread Trey Harris
In a message dated Sun, 9 Jun 2002, Damian Conway writes: > Trey Harris wrote: > > rule parsetag :w { > > $tagname := > > %attrs := [ () = > > () > > ]* > >/? > > > > } On second reading, it occurs to me that this wouldn't work

Re: Apoc 5 questions/comments

2002-06-09 Thread Melvin Smith
At 10:21 PM 6/9/2002 +1000, Damian Conway wrote: >Richard Nuttall wrote: > > Grammar::Python, Grammar::Ruby, Grammar::PHP ? > >I should imagine that the first two at least would be very likely, given that >we wish both of those languages to run on top of Parrot. Given that by the time Parrot is b

RE: Apoc 5 questions/comments

2002-06-09 Thread Brent Dax
Damian Conway: # Richard Nuttall wrote: # > # > > I have no doubt that, once Perl 6 is available, we'll see # a rash of # > > modules released in the Grammar:: namespace. Including # > > Grammar::Romana, Grammar::Klingon, Grammar::Buffy, # Grammer::Mispelt, # > > and others... :-) # > # > G

Re: Apoc 5 questions/comments

2002-06-09 Thread Damian Conway
Richard Nuttall wrote: > > > I have no doubt that, once Perl 6 is available, we'll see a > > rash of modules released in the Grammar:: namespace. > > Including Grammar::Romana, > > Grammar::Klingon, Grammar::Buffy, Grammer::Mispelt, and others... :-) > > Grammar::Python, Grammar::Ruby, Grammar::

RE: Apoc 5 questions/comments

2002-06-09 Thread Richard Nuttall
> I have no doubt that, once Perl 6 is available, we'll see a > rash of modules released in the Grammar:: namespace. > Including Grammar::Romana, > Grammar::Klingon, Grammar::Buffy, Grammer::Mispelt, and others... :-) Grammar::Python, Grammar::Ruby, Grammar::PHP ? R.

Re: Apoc 5 questions/comments

2002-06-09 Thread Damian Conway
> I have no doubt that, once Perl 6 is available, we'll see a rash of modules > released in the Grammar:: namespace. Including Grammar::Romana, > Grammar::Klingon, Grammar::Buffy, Grammer::Mispelt, and others... :-) Ah, Mr Wardley, I see you have finally apprehended the magnitude of my nefarious

Re: Apoc 5 questions/comments

2002-06-09 Thread Andy Wardley
On Sat, Jun 08, 2002 at 06:51:19AM +1000, Damian Conway wrote: > I have no doubt that, once Perl 6 is available, we'll see a rash of modules > released in the Grammar:: namespace. Including Grammar::HTML and Grammar::XML. I have no doubt that, once Perl 6 is available, we'll see a rash of module

Re: Apoc 5 questions/comments

2002-06-08 Thread Damian Conway
Trey Harris wrote: > I guess this is as good an opportunity as any to be sure I've got what's > going on. So, here's a first, simple, addmitedly broken hack at a simple > parser for xml-ish start tags and empty entities: > > rule lt { \< } > rule gt { \> } > rule identifier { > # I don't kn

Re: Apoc 5 questions/comments

2002-06-08 Thread Damian Conway
Dave Storrs yiked: > Yikes. Ok, I obviously badly misunderstood that. I'll go back > and reread it. So, can you provide an example of a "pattern nested > within a closure", since I obviously didn't understand? Sure: m/ if { /? ::: / and print $0.{comment} } / The C? ::: />

Re: Apoc 5 questions/comments

2002-06-08 Thread Larry Wall
On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, Peschko, Edward wrote: : Let me get this straight. the grammar of Perl is reprogrammable, : and expressed in perl6. And a script is parsed using this grammar, : on the fly, hence portions of scripts could have different grammars : than other parts. Where have you been for the

Re: Apoc 5 questions/comments

2002-06-07 Thread John Siracusa
On 6/7/02 5:44 PM, Damian Conway wrote: > John Siracusa wrote: >>> I have no doubt that, once Perl 6 is available, we'll see a rash of modules >>> released in the Grammar:: namespace. Including Grammar::HTML and >>> Grammar::XML. >> >> Why not just make Grammar::DTD, and then make Grammar::Genera

Re: Apoc 5 questions/comments

2002-06-07 Thread esp5
f On Fri, Jun 07, 2002 at 05:10:49PM -0400, Trey Harris wrote: > In a message dated Fri, 7 Jun 2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > The most serious objection to this was 'well, use modules for matching *ml" - > > which simply points out that the current incarnation of perl6 regex doesn' > > t han

Re: Apoc 5 questions/comments

2002-06-07 Thread Damian Conway
John Siracusa wrote: > > I have no doubt that, once Perl 6 is available, we'll see a rash of modules > > released in the Grammar:: namespace. Including Grammar::HTML and Grammar::XML. > > Why not just make Grammar::DTD, and then make Grammar::Generator::FromDTD. > Then use those to make all the

Re: Apoc 5 questions/comments

2002-06-07 Thread Luke Palmer
On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, John Siracusa wrote: > On 6/7/02 4:48 PM, Luke Palmer wrote: > > rule tag($name) {:w \< $name %opts:=[ (\S+)=(\S+) ]* \> } > > > > Then, you can match an img tag with: > > > > / / > > > > See, isn't that great? > > Don't you mean, "see, isn't that massively over-simplifie

Re: Apoc 5 questions/comments

2002-06-07 Thread John Siracusa
On 6/7/02 4:51 PM, Damian Conway wrote: > I have no doubt that, once Perl 6 is available, we'll see a rash of modules > released in the Grammar:: namespace. Including Grammar::HTML and Grammar::XML. Why not just make Grammar::DTD, and then make Grammar::Generator::FromDTD. Then use those to make

Re: Apoc 5 questions/comments

2002-06-07 Thread John Siracusa
On 6/7/02 4:48 PM, Luke Palmer wrote: > rule tag($name) {:w \< $name %opts:=[ (\S+)=(\S+) ]* \> } > > Then, you can match an img tag with: > > / / > > See, isn't that great? Don't you mean, "see, isn't that massively over-simplified?" ;) (but yeah, we get the idea... :) -John

Re: Apoc 5 questions/comments

2002-06-07 Thread Trey Harris
In a message dated Fri, 7 Jun 2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > The most serious objection to this was 'well, use modules for matching *ml" - > which simply points out that the current incarnation of perl6 regex doesn' > t handle a very large class of matching problems very well. I don't think th

Re: Apoc 5 questions/comments

2002-06-07 Thread Luke Palmer
> The most serious objection to this was 'well, use modules for matching *ml" - > which simply points out that the current incarnation of perl6 regex doesn' > t handle a very large class of matching problems very well. The modules use regexes. They just spend more time on them and make them bet

Re: Apoc 5 questions/comments

2002-06-07 Thread esp5
>> Can we please have a 'reverse x' modifier that means "treat whitespace as >> literals"? > I'll talk about that with Larry. If he were to approve it, it might possibly > be :W. Likewise, could we please have a modifier that makes <> literal, and aliases <> as something else so *ml can match ea

Re: Apoc 5 questions/comments

2002-06-07 Thread Larry Wall
On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, Dave Storrs wrote: > Just to be sure I understood: you meant that (A) yes, you can use > fail in a subroutine outside a regex, and (B) if you do, it is no > different from die. Is that correct? Depends on the caller's use of "use fatal". If they don't use fatal, it re

Re: Apoc 5 questions/comments

2002-06-07 Thread Dave Storrs
On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, Damian Conway wrote: > Dave Storrs wrote: > > > Somehow, this feels like we're trying to roll all of Prolog > > into Perl, > > No. We're rolling in all of yacc/lex/RecDescent instead. ;-) And this should reassure me _why_? *grin* > > Just to verify, this: > > > >

Re: Apoc 5 questions/comments

2002-06-07 Thread Larry Wall
On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, David Wheeler wrote: > I was hoping for a magic array that would hold > the actual *matches*, rather than pointers to their character positions. A5 says that @$0 is that array. Larry

Re: Apoc 5 questions/comments

2002-06-07 Thread David Wheeler
On 6/7/02 11:21 AM, "David Wheeler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> claimed: > Not to mention kinda useless. I was hoping for a magic array that would hold > the actual *matches*, rather than pointers to their character positions. And it appears to be C<@$0>. Duh. Sorry for the noise, folks. David -- Dav

Re: Apoc 5 questions/comments

2002-06-07 Thread David Wheeler
On 6/7/02 10:12 AM, "Jonathan E. Paton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> claimed: > A5, under "RFC 072: Variable-length lookbehind": > > "Did I mention that the magical @+ and @- arrays are gonna be real dead? >Never could remember which one was which anyway..." Not to mention kinda useless. I was hop

Re: Apoc 5 questions/comments

2002-06-07 Thread Jonathan E. Paton
--- David Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 6/6/02 11:43 PM, "Damian Conway" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> claimed: > > >> / $2:=(.*?), \h* $1:=(.*) / > >> > >> Does this imply that $1, $2, etc are now read-write outside of regexen? > > > > No. > > Maybe this is a RTFM question, but does

Re: Apoc 5 questions/comments

2002-06-07 Thread David Wheeler
On 6/6/02 11:43 PM, "Damian Conway" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> claimed: >> / $2:=(.*?), \h* $1:=(.*) / >> >> Does this imply that $1, $2, etc are now read-write outside of regexen? > > No. Maybe this is a RTFM question, but does Perl 6 (or Perl 5, for that matter) have some magical array that

Re: Apoc 5 questions/comments

2002-06-06 Thread Luke Palmer
Note: My answers are non-authoritative. Don't trust me. > Can we please have a 'reverse x' modifier that means "treat whitespace as > literals"? Yes, we are living in a Unicode world now and your data could > theoretically be coming in from a different character set than expected. > But there

Re: Apoc 5 questions/comments

2002-06-06 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 10:59 PM -0700 6/6/02, Dave Storrs wrote: >Page 8: > >The u1-u3 mods all say "level 1 support". I assume this was a typo, and >they should go (u1 => 'level 1', u2 => 'level 2', u3 => 'level 3'). Yeah. I'd avoid these if you can manage. There's not a whole lot of reason to mandate Unicode in

Re: Apoc 5 questions/comments

2002-06-06 Thread Damian Conway
Dave Storrs wrote: > I admit I'm a bit nervous about that...so far, I'm completely sold on > (basically) all the new features and changes in Perl 6, and I'm eagerly > anticipating working with them. But this level of change...I don't know. > I've spent a lot of time getting to be (reasonaly) goo