On Mon, Apr 19, 2004 at 01:06:29AM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
: Therefore, the first syntax can be redefined to evaluate the code block
: and assign the result to $0. The example now becomes:
:
: rule list {
: , <{ make_node('list', $?term, $?list) }>
: | <{ $?term
Jeff Clites writes:
> On Apr 19, 2004, at 12:06 AM, Luke Palmer wrote:
>
> >Therefore, the first syntax can be redefined to evaluate the code block
> >and assign the result to $0.
>
> Would you ever want to leave $0 unaltered? That's the only concern
> which comes to mind.
Absoultely: if you wa
On Apr 19, 2004, at 12:06 AM, Luke Palmer wrote:
Therefore, the first syntax can be redefined to evaluate the code block
and assign the result to $0.
Would you ever want to leave $0 unaltered? That's the only concern
which comes to mind.
My argument for using this notation stems from the fact th
Luke Palmer writes:
> <{ get_rule() }># call an anonymous rule returned by the code block
>
> Can also be written:
>
> <$( get_rule() )>
>
> Therefore, the first syntax can be redefined to evaluate the code block
> and assign the result to $0. The example now becomes:
>
> rule
I notice that when I write a grammar, I end up doing this an awful lot
(in P::RD notation):
list: term ',' list { make_node(@item[0,1,3]) }
| term { $item[1] }
With attention on the actions, and assuming is on.
In Perl 6, aside from the fact that there's a clearly better wa
