in reply to Re^3: (Sort of) poll: what Perl6 features do you consider {likely,desirable} to leak into P5?
in thread (Sort of) poll: what Perl6 features do you consider {likely,desirable} to leak into P5?
Having (just) managed to work my way through the process of adding a new keyword, I have a new (but still basic) understanding of the process involved in toke.c.Hey, you can't give that hint without telling the whole thing: now I'm too curious. What is it? What is it about?
If the macro facility was added, then you might be able to define a few catchall keywords that would act as placeholders in the syntax. Say uniop() and binop() and then wrap those in macros to define an new operator. Not sure about that.And even in that case it wouldn't have quite the same power Perl6's equivalents are supposed to have, e.g. in terms of user-definable priority. Unless a whole array of new uniop()s and binop()s are also defined, which seems rather awkward after all...
|
|---|
| Replies are listed 'Best First'. | |
|---|---|
|
Re^5: (Sort of) poll: what Perl6 features do you consider {likely,desirable} to leak into P5?
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Mar 10, 2005 at 10:12 UTC | |
by dragonchild (Archbishop) on Mar 10, 2005 at 13:24 UTC | |
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Mar 10, 2005 at 17:06 UTC | |
by blazar (Canon) on Mar 10, 2005 at 13:00 UTC |