On Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 08:21:25PM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
> Allison Randal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > No, because rules are basically methods, just like grammars are
> > basically classes. You would only need a semi-colon if you were defining
> > an anonymous C (similar to an anonymous
Allison Randal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 10:38:39AM -0400, John Siracusa wrote:
>> On 6/6/02 2:43 AM, Damian Conway wrote:
>> > rule wordlist { (\w+) [ , (\w+) ]* }
>>
>> No semicolon at the end of that line? I've already forgotten the "new
>> rules" for that type
On Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 10:38:39AM -0400, John Siracusa wrote:
> On 6/6/02 2:43 AM, Damian Conway wrote:
> > rule wordlist { (\w+) [ , (\w+) ]* }
>
> No semicolon at the end of that line? I've already forgotten the "new
> rules" for that type of thing... :)
No, because rules are basically met
On 6/6/02 2:43 AM, Damian Conway wrote:
> rule wordlist { (\w+) [ , (\w+) ]* }
No semicolon at the end of that line? I've already forgotten the "new
rules" for that type of thing... :)
-John
David Whipp wrote:
>
> First, a slight clarification: if I say:
>
> m:w/ %foo := [ (\w+) = (\w+) [ , (\w+) ]* ] /
>
> does this give me a hash of arrays? (i.e. is the rhs of a hash processed as
> a scalar context)
That's an error. The grouping bound to a hypothetical hash has to have
either
