On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 09:19:22PM +0200, "TSa (Thomas Sandlaß)" wrote:
> >I think the state object ought to have some sort of base type --
> >is it Grammar? Rule? If we say it's a "Rule", then we're
> >effectively saying that "applying a Rule to a target results
> >in a Rule object containing
Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
Alas, it doesn't seem to be quite that straightforward. Or maybe
it is, and I'm just not seeing it yet. So, I'll just "think out
loud" here for a bit...
I like it if that is happening on the list instead of off-list.
Thanks.
I think the state object ought to have
On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 09:14:33AM +0200, "TSa (Thomas Sandlaß)" wrote:
> Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> >Of course, there are other "implicit" parameters that are given
> >to a rule -- the target string to be matched and an initial
> >starting position. But I think some of those details are still
>
Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
Of course, there are other "implicit" parameters that are given
to a rule -- the target string to be matched and an initial
starting position. But I think some of those details are still
being worked out.
Wasn't it said that rules have the current match object/stat
On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 12:52:36AM -0400, Jeff 'japhy' Pinyan wrote:
> Further woes, arguments, questions:
>
> In regards to <@array>, A5 says "A leading @ matches like a bare array..."
> but this is an over-generalization. A leading '@' merely indicates the
> rule is found in an array. <@arra
Further woes, arguments, questions:
In regards to <@array>, A5 says "A leading @ matches like a bare array..."
but this is an over-generalization. A leading '@' merely indicates the
rule is found in an array. <@array[3]> would be the same as
<$fourth_element_of_array>, assuming those two val
On Thu, May 26, 2005 at 11:19:42AM -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> <$rule> N indirect rule
> <::$rulename> N indirect symbolic rule
> <@rules>N like '@rules'
> <%rules>N like '%rules'
> <{ code }> N code
On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 01:20:57PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> On Thu, May 26, 2005 at 11:19:42AM -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> : Do we still have the <> syntax, or was that abandoned in
> : favor of ? (I know there are still some remnants of <<...>>
> : in S05 and A05, but I'm not sure they'
On Thu, May 26, 2005 at 11:19:42AM -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
: Do we still have the <> syntax, or was that abandoned in
: favor of ? (I know there are still some remnants of <<...>>
: in S05 and A05, but I'm not sure they're intentional.)
It's gone, though we're reserving it for something
On Sun, May 29, 2005 at 12:52:25PM -0400, Jeff 'japhy' Pinyan wrote:
> I'm curious if and "capture" anything. They don't start
> with '?', so following the guidelines, it would appear they capture, but
> that doesn't make sense. Should they be written as and ,
> or is the fact that they cap
On May 26, Patrick R. Michaud said:
N backtracking fails completely
N remove what matched up to this point from the
string
N we must be after the pattern P
N we must NOT be after the pattern P
N we must be before the
I'm having a hard time coming up eith examples where I need anything otehr than
union and difference for character classes. Most of the predefined character
classes are disjoint, so intersection is almost useless. So for now let's just
stick with + and - and simple sets with not parens, unless
On Sat, May 28, 2005 at 12:58:01AM -0400, Jeff 'japhy' Pinyan wrote:
>[ set notation for character classes ]
>
> What say you?
Off the top of my head I think using & and | within character classes
will cause confusion.
/ (<~(X & Y) | Z> | ) & /
So much for the "visual pill" of
Also,
In regards to http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl6.language/21120
which discusses character class syntax in Perl 6, I have some comments to
make.
First, I've been very interested in seeing proper set notation for char
classes in Perl 5. I was pretty vocal about it during TPC in 2002, I
On Thu, May 26, 2005 at 07:05:41PM -0400, Jeff 'japhy' Pinyan wrote:
> >Here the leading tokens are actually "<$", "<::$", "<@", "<%", "<{", "<&",
> >and "<(", and I suspect we have " >"
> Per your second message, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> would mean >,
> right?
I think so -- at least, it seems that w
On May 26, Patrick R. Michaud said:
On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 08:25:03PM -0400, Jeff 'japhy' Pinyan wrote:
I have looked through the latest
revisions of Apo05 and Syn05 (from Dec 2004) and come up with the
following list:
http://japhy.perlmonk.org/perl6/rules.txt
I'll review the list below,
Rather than answer each message in this thread individually, I'll
try to aggregate them here. Disclaimer: These are just my
interpretations of how rules are defined; I'm not the one who
decides how they *should* be defined.
On Wed, May 25, 2005 at 10:55:59AM -0400, Jeff 'japhy' Pinyan wrote:
>
On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 08:25:03PM -0400, Jeff 'japhy' Pinyan wrote:
> I have looked through the latest
> revisions of Apo05 and Syn05 (from Dec 2004) and come up with the
> following list:
>
> http://japhy.perlmonk.org/perl6/rules.txt
I'll review the list below, but it's also worthwhile to r
Jeff 'japhy' Pinyan wrote:
On May 25, Mark A. Biggar said:
Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 11:24:50PM -0400, Jeff 'japhy' Pinyan wrote:
I wish was allowed. I don't see why has to be
confined to zero-width assertions.
I don't either actually. One thing that occurred
On May 25, Mark A. Biggar said:
Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 11:24:50PM -0400, Jeff 'japhy' Pinyan wrote:
I wish was allowed. I don't see why has to be confined to
zero-width assertions.
I don't either actually. One thing that occurred to me while responding
to your
On May 25, Jonathan Scott Duff said:
On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 11:24:50PM -0400, Jeff 'japhy' Pinyan wrote:
I wish was allowed. I don't see why has to be confined
to zero-width assertions.
I don't either actually. One thing that occurred to me while responding
to your original email was that
Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 11:24:50PM -0400, Jeff 'japhy' Pinyan wrote:
I wish was allowed. I don't see why has to be confined
to zero-width assertions.
I don't either actually. One thing that occurred to me while responding
to your original email was that might h
On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 11:24:50PM -0400, Jeff 'japhy' Pinyan wrote:
> I wish was allowed. I don't see why has to be confined
> to zero-width assertions.
I don't either actually. One thing that occurred to me while responding
to your original email was that might have slightly wrong
huffmaniz
On May 24, Jonathan Scott Duff said:
On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 08:25:03PM -0400, Jeff 'japhy' Pinyan wrote:
http://japhy.perlmonk.org/perl6/rules.txt
That looks completish to me. (At least I didn't think, "hey! where's
such and such?")
Oh, frabjous day!
One thing that I noticed and had t
On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 08:25:03PM -0400, Jeff 'japhy' Pinyan wrote:
> http://japhy.perlmonk.org/perl6/rules.txt
That looks completish to me. (At least I didn't think, "hey! where's
such and such?")
One thing that I noticed and had to look up was
<-prop X>
though. Because ...
>
I'm working on a Perl 5 module that will allow for the parsing of a Perl 6
rule into a tree structure -- specifically, I'm subclassing/extending
Regexp::Parser into Perl6::Rule::Parser. This module is designed ONLY to
PARSE the contents of a rule; it is not concerned with the implementation
of
26 matches
Mail list logo
