in reply to Re: Perl precedence details
in thread Perl precedence details

Yes, i read all the links above and I know about perl ticks. But it's not what i need.

I'm working on Perl5 IDEA plugin and currently re-working parser. Need to parse expressions properly in obvious situations. Without eval/regexp tricks or something.

So i need to know how perl distincts named unary from rightward list calls in obvious situations. And which of built-ins treated as named unary operators.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Perl precedence details
by Anonymous Monk on Jun 20, 2015 at 14:43 UTC

    This thread already references plenty of good information on the topic, to the point where I'm not sure you're going to find much more, and including PPI, which already does a relatively good job of parsing Perl. It's unclear to me how all this information does or does not fit your needs. Can you perhaps give specific examples of code you or your parser find difficult to parse; maybe that will make explanation easier?

[reply]

      Plenty of good information, but no specific answer to specific question.

[reply]
        but no specific answer to specific question.

        Which specific question?

        There are 7 question marks in the OP and another couple of questions without one.

        Some of those questions -- a list of named unary operators -- have been answered.

        Others are so open ended, vague and unformed, it would be hard to answer without reproducing half of perldoc. Eg:

        • Is this about any sub with non-($) prototype and args without parens?

          Is what about ...

        • What about optional args?

          What "what" about optional args?

        • What about built ins?

          What "what" about them?

        As someone who has something of a history of asking rather vague questions, I know it is often hard to explain what the exact information you're looking for is, and easy to forget that a question formed in the context of your thought processes -- possibly going back days or weeks -- seems very clear to you; but not so clear to those who don't have that context.

        So if you have specific questions; you'll need to convey their specificity with enough context that people can attempt answer specifically, or point you at specific part of the docs; rather then broad areas.

        With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
        Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
        "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
        In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
        I'm with torvalds on this Agile (and TDD) debunked I told'em LLVM was the way to go. But did they listen!
[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom