Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
- for minimal matching the ? is too far away from the operator that it
applies to. It looks like it's doing something to the closure (and
maybe it is) Should that be [foo]**?{$m..$n} instead?
- Bringing a closure into the picture seems to put too much power in
such
Please forgive me if these ideas have been discussed before. I don't
remember having read them elsewhere.
For specifying in-rule repetitions, why not use the rule modifer we
already have for specifying whole-rule repetitions; namely, C<:x>. Allow
:x inside rules like :i and :w, and we get somethin
Dan Hursh writes:
> Second, if it is a problem that '?' is too far away, how about this?
>
> [foo]**{5..3} # greedy
> [foo]**{3..5} # lazy
Because 5..3 is the empty list. This wasn't a mistake in Perl 5, so
it's staying in Perl 6.
> Oh, is there a way to trick this closure syntax into being
Kurt Hutchinson writes:
> For specifying in-rule repetitions, why not use the rule modifer we
> already have for specifying whole-rule repetitions; namely, C<:x>. Allow
> :x inside rules like :i and :w, and we get something like this:
> rx :w/ three m's\: [:3xm] /
> rx :w/ t
On Sat, Sep 18, 2004 at 03:00:09PM -0400, Kurt Hutchinson wrote:
> Repitition is a kind of assertion, after all, and it seems like it
> should get to play in the same angle-bracket sandbox as the other
> assertions.
Once I got to thinking about **{}, the less and less it looked like an
assertion t
Rod Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> One solution I see to this would be to have a "lazy return" of some
> kind, where you can send out what results you have so far, but not
> commit that your execution is over and still allow further results to
> be posted. For lack of better word coming to mi
Jonadab the Unsightly One writes:
> Rod Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > One solution I see to this would be to have a "lazy return" of some
> > kind, where you can send out what results you have so far, but not
> > commit that your execution is over and still allow further results to
> > b
Luke Palmer wrote:
Jonadab the Unsightly One writes:
Rod Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
One solution I see to this would be to have a "lazy return" of some
kind, where you can send out what results you have so far, but not
commit that your execution is over and still allow further result
Juerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jonadab the Unsightly One skribis 2004-09-17 10:46 (-0400):
>> * They are of critical importance on Apache-based webservers.
>
> They are not. See mod_mime_magic.
Magic, as far as I know, only works for filetypes that have known byte
sequences.
>> * They ins
James Mastros <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>As a special case, if the "filename" argument to perl is a
>directory, and the directory contains a file named "main.pl",
>then the directory is prepended to @*INC, and main.pl is run.
I think it would be useful if the "directory" could also
Rod Adams writes:
> Better documentation on gather/take is merited.
Without a doubt.
> I would question the need for C, however. Could not a lone
> C/C force the return value of the enclosing routine/closure
> to be a lazy list, and here's a few values to get things started?
C is necessary. C
11 matches
Mail list logo
