On 12/26/05, Patrick R. Michaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I argue that by the structure of that rule, you should be able to tell
> > which xs go with which y.
> > ...
> > Is there a counterargument that I'm not seeing?
>
> I'd say that if you want a structured rule, it should be written
> that
On Mon, Dec 26, 2005 at 07:34:06PM +, Luke Palmer wrote:
> On 12/26/05, Patrick R. Michaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 02:09:19PM +, Luke Palmer wrote:
> > > "x" ~~ / [ [ (x) ]* ]* /
> >
> > As I understand things, $/[0][0] would be "x".
>
> Hmm, that seems w
On 12/26/05, Patrick R. Michaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 02:09:19PM +, Luke Palmer wrote:
> > "x" ~~ / [ [ (x) ]* ]* /
>
> As I understand things, $/[0][0] would be "x".
Hmm, that seems wrong. Consider:
"xxxyxxyxy" ~~ / [ [ (x) ]* (y) ]* /
I argue that by
On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 02:09:19PM +, Luke Palmer wrote:
> What sort of match object should this return, supposing that it didn't
> infinite loop:
>
> "x" ~~ / [ [ (x) ]* ]* /
>
> Should $/[0][0] be "x", or should $/[0][0][0] be "x"? If it's the
> latter, then when do new top-level eleme
