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

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.
  • by Thos Davis (6347) on 2008.01.29 15:30 (#60646)
    Actually, because Perl 6 does have a grammar, a tool could include it's own parser which would could lex the code including any grammar changes without doing any of the calls which don't change the language. That wasn't really possible when filters were reaching in and twisting about the compiler innards. Consequently, tools like vim with it's own syntax coloring language which is not dynamic, will be less useful :( while others with plug-in token labelers will flourish -- well until someone replaces the current syntax logic with a perl6 instance that will allow coloring tokens in any language with dynamic syntax :).
    • You've outlined the situation perfectly.

      Perl 6 breaks a ton of existing tools, while relying on the existance of new tools which everybody assumes will exist but nobody has actually proven can be written.
      • Perl 6 breaks a ton of existing tools,

        Besides the fact that the existing tools were written before Perl 6, there is no guarantee they would work with Perl 6 if grammar modifications were disabled. There is no existing tool today that works with perl 6 (other than basic syntax highlighting of various editors). Your entire basis in this thread is about the creation of "new tools which everybody assumes will exist but nobody has actually proven can be written.

        • I'm talking about the methodologies used to implement the tools.

          If there is an equivalent environment, then it's reasonable to predict that an equivalent methodology can be used to achieve an equivalent result.

          The code then just becomes an implementation detail.

          I don't understand why you are attacking my in a discussion about a future language for talking future tools for that future language.
          • I don't understand why you are attacking me in a discussion about a future language for talking about future tools for that future language.
            I apologize if you felt a personal attack. Some of my comments may have been too heavy. But you surely expected some heavy responses when you attacked the future language. Still I apologize.