| Time |
S |
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! |
