Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

use Perl Log In

Log In

[ Create a new account ]

Journal of luqui (5770)

Wednesday January 11, 2006
08:40 PM

Today's Perl 6 Meeting Notes

[ #28319 ]

Damian:
        - things are looking up
        - I took a break, which helps
        - first week back at work from the near year
        - lots of mail
        - I'll be in Asia and Tokyo in March
        - otherwise enjoying the holidays
        - I've been tracking Larry's updates
        - intend to send more feedback soon
        - I'll be at a Linux conference in New Zealand the week after next
        - I'll have time then

Patrick:
        - lots of non-Perl busy-ness here
        - will pick up on PGE again tomorrow
        - another project moved up a deadline, so that was busy
        - should free up some time tonight

Jesse:
        - what's the next checkpoint there?

Patrick:
        - actually writing a parser for Perl 6 code
        - I have the various pieces in the constellation to bring them together
        - figuring out what to do with the parse trees comes after that
        - but we can generate parse trees
        - I'll also be on #parrot again

Allison:
        - working on extending Punie still
        - Patrick, I mailed a question about the operator precedence parser
        - working on comma-separated expressions
        - discovered an interesting thing
        - you can set up a PGE grammar to make it easier or harder to write tree
            transformations
        - the Perl 1 style of recursive rules makes trees harder
        - at least, harder than repetition within the rule

Luke:
        - what are you turning things into?

Allison:
        - some things need flat lists
        - some things don't, but flat lists are easier to iterate over

Patrick:
        - it can make a huge difference
        - it's nice to have both options with a nice syntax
        - is there a reason not to treat comma as an operator?

Allison:
        - not sure
        - I'll decide which way works best later
        - but I suspect repetition may be simpler

Patrick:
        - my plans for operator precedence allow list-associativity
        - so it may work easier

Larry:
        - Perl 1 had a lot of hard-wired things in its grammar
        - Perl 5 was more flexible

Allison:
        - definitely interesting and informative

Larry:
        - various bad luck
        - desperately trying to follow along on everything at once
        - not really responding
        - my day job is really busy for the next couple of weeks
        - haven't done anything on the translator
        - I'm letting that gurgle in the background

Jesse:
        - what's your goal for the translator?
        - 100% test suite?

Larry:
        - I don't know that it can ever get entirely there
        - but it's effectively there already
        - I don't know how much I'll have to warp it
        - I'm pretty confident I'm getting all of the information out
        - I don't know if I'm getting it all out in the most convenient form for
            the translator
        - it'd be good if someone could merge it back in to the Perl 5 mainline
            at some point
        - my impression is that Perl 5 is not mutating rapidly at this point
        - not a big rush

Luke:
        - what are its effects on parsing speeds?

Larry:
        - very little
        - only a few conditional tests if you don't want the extra information
        - a separate grammar file with extra goodies
        - just a wrapper around yyparse mostly
        - that was part of my original spec
        - do need some stuff in the tokenizer, but they're guarded by conditionals

Luke:
        - not much this week
        - thinking about generalizing the design of Parse::Rule into useful
            language constructs
        - I had to pull some dirty design tricks
        - talked a bit on p6l about composable modules
        - now thinking about building an object and type system out of them
        - haven't had much time to work on it
        - but it looks promising
        - my final project for cognitive science was on tree adjoining grammars
        - they seem appropriate for our metaoperators
        - instead of building a separate operator for each metaoperator-operator combination, you
            could set that up as an auxiliary tree in that theory
        - you can parse them top-down
        - as long as you have parameterized rules
        - I wonder if I can massage that into a grammar that actually works
        - does PGE do parameterized rules?

Patrick:
        - it only understands strings so far
        - subrule name, colon, space -- everything else is an argument
        - from Apocalypse 5
        - maybe never blessed into a Synopsis
        - official syntax is subrule( list )
        - PGE doesn't understand that yet

Jesse:
        - spent two weeks mostly not working
        - ended up writing some code, which was weird
        - heard from Chip on Monday; he's back now
        - have had some interest in Ponie pumpkining
        - is anyone blocking on anything external?

c:
        - what's the legal documents status?

Allison:
        - it's probably time for the public review

Luke:
        - Audrey is prodding us to come up with tagged unions
        - the theory.pod syntax isn't very nice
        - can't put my finger on why
        - I looked at OCaml's tag types
        - put a tag on a type and get a new type
        - then create unions of types and get a tagged union
        - but I've never seen them used in practice
        - I wonder how well they fit common uses

Larry:
        - the type becomes a value bit of the new tag
        - used as a discriminant at runtime, if not earlier?

Luke:
        - I think so
        - Perl has scalars where they are kind of deranged tagged unions with more
            than one tag at once
        - but ignoring that...

Larry:
        - I'm agreeable to the idea that unions should be discriminated
        - the C idea of unions is a complete botch
        - there has to be some way of telling them apart
        - if they're objects, they have their own built-in identity
        - but I'm not a great type theoretician

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.