Camelia, the Perl 6 bug

IRC log for #perl6-soc, 2009-07-08

| Channels | #perl6-soc index | Today | | Search | Google Search | Plain-Text | summary

All times shown according to UTC.

Time Nick Message
19:04 * literal caughs
19:07 masak joined #perl6-soc
19:07 * masak tumbles in, slightly out of breath
19:07 literal Hi
19:07 zarah oh hai literal
19:07 masak oh, I see I haven't missed any meeting-so-far :)
19:08 masak I'm more or less done with my homework for today. just need one more minute.
19:09 TimToady joined #perl6-soc
19:09 masak literal: in the meantime, feel free to report on stuff. (1) done, (2) plan to do, (3) blockers
19:09 masak TimToady: good, I think we'll need you today.
19:10 pmurias joined #perl6-soc
19:10 sbp joined #perl6-soc
19:12 StephenPollei joined #perl6-soc
19:13 masak literal: did you vanish, or are you writing a really long one-line report? :)
19:13 literal writing
19:13 masak excellent. me too. :)
19:15 ruoso joined #perl6-soc
19:15 literal I've got S29 function lookup done in grok now, and some other small improvements. I'd like to set the stage for documenting all the little syntax bits (grok 'my', grok '+') etc. I suppose I can just "hardcode" the name of those for now, i.e. print the docs for the plus if the user enters something like /\+|infix:['"<«]+/.
19:16 masak I have lots to discuss about that today.
19:16 masak especially the syntactic types of the 'infix:' sort.
19:17 masak what's best -- leave the discussion till after everyone's report, or do discussion now and another report later?
19:18 literal On my project schedule I have some documentation writing coming up in about a week, hopefully we can figure something out before then
19:19 masak I hope so too. it'll kind of have to align itself to the architecture of grok, as well.
19:19 literal but if not, I can of course start with those that don't need it as much, such as a tutorial
19:20 masak sure. but we need to figure out the little-things syntax eventually anyway.
19:21 masak I promised last week that I'd prepare a small example of that, and I did that on the train back to Uppsala, so I have an example ready.
19:21 masak before I post it, can anyone guess how many different plus ('+') symbols there are in Perl 6?
19:22 masak i.e. how many different meanings does this symbol have in standard Perl 6?
19:22 TimToady well, the twigil went away
19:22 masak yes. I'm counting that, but as deprecated.
19:22 TimToady <+foo>
19:22 masak indeed.
19:22 masak that's two.
19:22 TimToady well prefix/infix of course
19:23 masak that's four.
19:23 TimToady are you counting q+...+ ?
19:23 masak no.
19:23 masak because that's not intrinsically +.
19:23 TimToady /x+/
19:23 masak now you've found the five easy ones. :)
19:23 StephenPollei and probably not counting 3 +| 4
19:24 masak nope, different symbol.
19:24 pmurias masak: please don't document deprecated Perl 6 stuff
19:24 TimToady /x*+/ as synonym ofr /x*!/ possibly
19:24 masak TimToady: hm, no. I count *+ as one symbol too. maybe I shouldn't?
19:24 TimToady well, I'd consider the + in +| vs +& to be the same plus
19:24 masak pmurias: ok, maybe we shouldn't.
19:25 literal that's quite a few plusses
19:25 masak TimToady: true. but people will be searching for those, not for just +.
19:25 TimToady point
19:25 masak literal: there's one left.
19:26 ascent_ joined #perl6-soc
19:26 masak while you ponder that one, I'll introduce you to the naming scheme I used for identifying those.
19:26 TimToady well, <-alpha+foo> is really just <+ again
19:26 pmurias do you count ++
19:26 TimToady that would be it
19:26 masak TimToady: yes, that's not the one.
19:27 masak pmurias: no, different symbol.
19:27 sbp .+ method postfix?
19:27 TimToady ah yes
19:27 masak sbp: no, same symbol.
19:27 TimToady that's a different use to me
19:27 masak TimToady: don't tell! :)
19:27 masak infix:<+> prefix:<+> twigil:<+> regex~quantifier:<+> regex~assertion:<+>
19:28 masak those are the five you've guessed so far.
19:28 masak please comment about the appropriateness of those names.
19:28 masak and about the ~ syntax.
19:28 TimToady ah, I remember :)
19:28 masak it's all provisional so far.
19:28 masak TimToady: you got it? don't tell. :)
19:29 TimToady typically it'll be carefully hidden in plain view
19:29 masak aye.
19:29 masak but it definitely belongs on the list.
19:29 masak in fact, I'd call that a mini-slang, and my naming reflects that, even though STD's doesn't.
19:29 TimToady mebbe
19:30 masak (mostly because I need to name it something.)
19:30 masak literal: what do you think about this way of naming things?
19:30 StephenPollei numeric context??
19:30 masak StephenPollei: that's prefix:<+>
19:31 literal masak: looks good
19:32 masak literal: so a user could type + or infix:<+> or regex:<+> or regex~+ or regex~quantifier:<+>, and they'd all match 6, 1, 2, 2, and 1 things respectively.
19:32 masak ok, I've tortured you long enough.
19:32 masak the last one's version~postfix:<+>
19:32 masak and here's the whole list: http://gist.github.com/143109
19:32 literal heh
19:33 sbp that's a metacharacter? really? wow
19:33 TimToady yes, that was my guess
19:33 masak sbp: well, depends on how you see it, I guess.
19:33 sbp only other thing I thought of was quoted \+
19:33 TimToady though it occurs to me that the +/- in 1e+05 isn't really any of those either, except in spirit
19:33 masak there's certainly syntax going on inside a :ver()
19:33 StephenPollei http://www.ozonehouse.com/mark/periodic/ was what I was trying to look at
19:33 zarah StephenPollei's link is also http://tinyurl.com/cgmm4w
19:34 masak TimToady: that's true. that's also a kind of mini-slangoid.
19:34 masak StephenPollei: that one has also run up against the problem of delineating operators from things that only look like operators. :)
19:34 sbp exponential~slangoid:<+> is going to look awesome
19:34 masak for example, 'does' looks a bit like an operator to me, but it's a special form.
19:35 masak sbp: :P
19:35 TimToady also, STD currently parses the + in 1+2i as part of a literal syntax
19:35 masak hm.
19:35 TimToady but not in 1 + 2i
19:36 masak right.
19:36 sbp is the former intended?
19:36 sbp or ought it to use regular infix op?
19:36 TimToady likewise / in 42/3
19:36 masak bot 1e+05 and 1+2i feel so non-problematic to me that they hardly require documentation, whereas the others do.
19:36 TimToady those are Complex and Rat literals
19:37 masak but as long as we can name things, I'm not against throwing them into u4x.
19:38 masak that was my big question for today: 'how will we name things?' -- but it seems people are not raging against the slang~category:<op> syntax
19:38 literal it's definitely reasonable
19:38 literal ~ is the slang twigil, right?
19:38 masak aye.
19:39 masak my first idea was ::, but I switched to ~ because of the twigil thing
19:40 moritz_ joined #perl6-soc
19:42 masak literal: I think I'd be very interested in seeing a prototype mechanism for the examples in u4x/README. would that be doable?
19:43 masak doesn't need to be very robust, just something that could handle exactly those cases.
19:43 literal yeah, sure
19:43 * moritz_ complains about a lock of blogging
19:43 * masak posts the examples he means: http://gist.github.com/143123
19:43 masak yeah, lack of blogging. *grumble*
19:43 literal moritz_: I'll take that into consideration :)
19:46 * pmurias is also guilty of repeated noblogging :(
19:46 masak literal: there's a lot of plumbing/structure still to be explored. feel free to chat me up during the week if you want to bounce ideas.
19:46 literal ok
19:48 masak moving along. any other reports?
19:48 masak anything else we want to discuss today?
19:49 literal hm
19:50 literal I think those mid-term evaluations are coming up (on the 13th)
19:50 masak yes, I read something about that on the mailing list.
19:50 ruoso I have already filled my part of the mid-term evaluations...
19:51 * masak hasn't, but will
19:53 masak anything else?
19:53 literal nothing I can think of
19:54 ruoso on me and pmurias' side, where talking almost every day... so we're up to speed
19:54 masak sounds good.
19:54 masak is there blogging, too?
19:54 ruoso pmurias is missing the weekly posts
19:54 ruoso but the svn commit log is very ellucidative
19:54 masak it's always good for outsiders to get a feeling for what's happening.
19:54 moritz_ keep up the good work, and improve your blogging frequency!
19:55 literal will do
19:55 masak ruoso: the commit logs might be excellent, but not as many people will look there. :)
19:55 ruoso sure... that's no excuse for the missed posts
19:56 masak hanyway, meeting wrapped up. great work everyone. see you in a week!

| Channels | #perl6-soc index | Today | | Search | Google Search | Plain-Text | summary