On Wed Apr 09 21:52:19 2008, infinoid wrote: > On Mon Apr 07 17:53:06 2008, coke wrote: > > With this patch, t/codingstd/c_operator.t fails a few tests, because > > the flag syntax of ":foo,bar" is (incorrectly) treated as if it were C > > syntax. (but if we want to enforce the comma or somehow change this > > syntax, now's a good time to speak up.) > > I ran into that too. If you really want ":foo,bar" syntax, I think that > means flags should become first class citizens and have a proper parser. > At the moment, flags are checked with a simple regex, which is pretty > hackish. Using syntax like ":foo:bar" instead of a comma would make > things work fine with the current flag checks. So I guess it depends on > how official you want to get about the whole flags thing. > > Note that even if you write a decent :flow regex that can handle (e.g.) > ":base_core,flow", you'd still also have to update all the *other* adhoc > regex parsers, to handle (e.g.) ":flow,python". > > Mark I'm not sure much is parsing these, other than the ":pic" in lib/Parrot/Op.pm. Attached is a new patch that uses the syntax ":flag1 :flag2" instead of ":flag1,flag2" , which required a small change to the op syntax parsing.