Front page | perl.perl6.internals |
Postings from September 2005
Re: Call for B0rked
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next
From:
Patrick R. Michaud
Date:
September 1, 2005 01:30
Subject:
Re: Call for B0rked
Message ID:
20050831234903.GA32363@host.pmichaud.com
On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 07:37:01PM -0400, Will Coleda wrote:
>
> However, I vote for the following, which are more specific:
>
> Unfinished Opcodes:
>
> https://rt.perl.org/rt3//Ticket/Display.html?id=32544 (split) [should
> be doable if we s/regexp/perl 6 rule/ and use PGE.]
In recent discussions (and for a variety of reasons) I've been advocating
that the definition of the split opcode should be modified so that
it separates based on a constant string rather than a regular
expression or perl 6 rule. There are several places where this
would be helpful to PGE, and separating on constant strings ought to
be optimizable to be a lot faster than what a p6 rule can do.
For splitting on regular expressions, PGE can then provide its own
split method or function that doesn't require hooking into the
opcode vtable. What's more, it would potentially be able to do
splits on any pattern expression, not just those written with perl 6
rules syntax.
> o Add rules engines for perl5-ish RE's in PGE: (I specifically want
> http://www.tcl.tk/man/tcl8.5/TclCmd/re_syntax.htm, but having a perl5-
> ish one I can subclass would be just dandy. =-)
Oh, we can probably work on this one. :-)
Pm
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next