Perl 6 - the future is here, just unevenly distributed

IRC log for #6macros, 2017-11-17

| Channels | #6macros index | Today | | Search | Google Search | Plain-Text | summary

All times shown according to UTC.

Time Nick Message
02:56 ilbot3 joined #6macros
12:26 Ven joined #6macros
14:45 Ven joined #6macros
16:42 Ven joined #6macros
17:20 Guest48681 I'm re-reading the macros discussion to giv myself a bit of context
17:21 Ven`` We're still missing calls(maybe variables) and captures
17:22 Ven`` Those are the two big regex things we're missing and once we get that we should be able to look further into the future
17:22 Ven`` I was thinking about captures mostly about the is parsed ticket, or more specifically, the ?? !! ticket
17:24 Ven`` macro infix:<?? !!>(condition: Q::Expr, then_part: Q::Expr, else_part: Q::Expr)
17:24 Ven`` is parsed(/"??" <EXPR> "!!"/)
17:24 Ven`` how does that work?
17:25 Ven`` the point #3 about capturing is also very interesting
17:26 Ven`` well -- the whole issue text makes it feel like is parsed deals with parsing **the operator**
17:30 Ven`` the category is already determined, and while trying to parse operators it tries this one
17:30 Ven`` while "shutter-yarding", it uses ?? !! as the "canonical name"
20:02 masak yeah, there are many open questions in that space
20:03 masak for example, should we make it a compile-time error if the first word in the op name differs from the first term in the regex? (probably)
20:03 masak should we also make it an error for subsequent words not to match some part of the rest of the regex? (don't think so)
20:05 masak I'm not 100% pleased with the "positional binding" approach -- but I believe it might get us off the ground and maybe better able to aim for the next local maximum

| Channels | #6macros index | Today | | Search | Google Search | Plain-Text | summary