On Sat, 2002-03-30 at 21:41, Michel J Lambert wrote:
> > > Too late. I'm going there... :)
> > Good for you. I was hoping transformations could make it :)
>
> Why didn't you chime in support before, then? I feel like Aaron and I are
> the only ones who are opinionated on this matter...
Hopefully
Luke Palmer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> Then the macro would not recieve 4 as the second argument,
> rather 2*6/3 in syntax tree form. Would the macro have to
> do its own constant folding? I hope not. So how could it
> check whether this thing was an integer? How could it
> differentiate
> > Too late. I'm going there... :)
> Good for you. I was hoping transformations could make it :)
Why didn't you chime in support before, then? I feel like Aaron and I are
the only ones who are opinionated on this matter...
> Here's something I was wondering. Say you wanted to write a pow() macr
On Fri, Mar 29, 2002 at 11:23:26PM -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
> > Too late. I'm going there... :)
> Good for you. I was hoping transformations could make it :)
>
> Here's something I was wondering. Say you wanted to write a pow() macro
> (from a previous example) that would forward to C's pow() u
Michel J Lambert wrote in perl.perl6.language :
> Has anyone done any thinking along the
> lines of how we are implementing the Perl 6 grammer?
Simon Cozens did. I don't know the details exactly.
Note also that the grammar and the parser are not the difficult part;
the perl 5 lexer is very compl
> Too late. I'm going there... :)
Good for you. I was hoping transformations could make it :)
Here's something I was wondering. Say you wanted to write a pow() macro
(from a previous example) that would forward to C's pow() unless the
exponent was an integer, in which case it would optimize to
