On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 06:20:51PM +0100, TSa wrote:
> HaloO,
>
> Jon Lang wrote:
>> This can already be done, for the most part:
>>
>> / (<.does(ro)>) /
>>
>> Mind you, this only searches a list; to make it search a tree, you'd
>> need a drill-down subrule such as I outline above:
>>
>> / <[>* (<.
HaloO,
Jon Lang wrote:
This can already be done, for the most part:
/ (<.does(ro)>) /
Mind you, this only searches a list; to make it search a tree, you'd
need a drill-down subrule such as I outline above:
/ <[>* (<.does(ro)>) <]>* /
Isn't it the case that ~~ has very special dispatch seman
Timothy S. Nelson wrote:
>> note to treematching folks: it is envisaged that signatures in
>> a rule will match nodes in a tree
>>
>>My question is, how is this expected to work? Can someone give an
>> example?
>
>I'm assuming that this relates to Jon Lang's comment about using
>
On Fri, 3 Oct 2008, Timothy S. Nelson wrote:
On Fri, 3 Oct 2008, Timothy S. Nelson wrote:
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, Timothy S. Nelson wrote:
Now that Perl6 is in the mix, though, I think that the best way to do
it is to make roles that model eg. Nodes, Plexes (Documents), Elements,
and the like,
