rakudo VS papers

Fix IO::Path::parent #4795: merged 2022-02-19 Add more IO::Path::parent tests #801: merged 2022-02-19 Change parent to always just remove the last element #4800: merged 2022-02-26 Change .parent behavior to "stupid" resolving #802: merged 2022-02-26

This then became the Formatter class. And since this was a completely new feature, it only became available for use by opting into the 6.e.PREVIEW language version. And then it went largely unnoticed and uncared for the next 1.5 year. As clearly the time wasn't right for it yet.

The intended audience are those people willing to be early adopters of these exciting new features in the Raku Programming Language. The examples in this blog post will work in the next release of the Rakudo compiler (probably 2023.06), but are now already available in the bleeding edge version.

If you really want to look at this, you can find the code in src/Perl6/Grammar.nqp, src/Perl6/Actions.nqp and src/Perl6/World.nqp.

If you find this very interesting, you probably want to read the RakuAST README. And the actual source code of the RakuAST classes can be found in the same directory. And if you're really feeling adventurous and you have the Rakudo repository checked out, you can have a look at the generated NQP code in gen/moar/ast.nqp.

Yes, it would. But until there was RakuAST, that was virtually impossible to do because there was no proper API for building ASTs. Nor was there an interface to execute those ASTs. And now that there is RakuAST, it is actually possible to do this. And there is actually already an implementation of that idea in the new Formatter class. Although this is definitely not intended as an entry point into grokking RakuAST.

I have opened one. https://github.com/rakudo/rakudo/issues/5205.

Will Coleda has made a Pull Request

There's an issue pertaining to this. This is something I'd like to resolve, but I'm unsure on how to better debug this to see if it really is the deserialization of a setting file triggering it. JDK 11 should at least be capable of building Rakudo, but being an experimental backend people don't always align with MoarVM immediately, I can't make any guarantees about tests. You may be disappointed in its performance at the moment.

(NB. While the PL is just a toy (and just a tiny bit of the toy too), the tech is actually industrial strength, used to power the production Raku compiler, which is written in Raku using its grammar construct. Starting easy doesn't mean you can't go far. Quite the opposite in fact -- you can go as far as you want.)

What's fun is, because everything is decided in papers, we can find out why! https://github.com/cplusplus/papers/issues/884

Accepted paper here: https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2022/p20...

> The proposed std::print function improves usability, avoids allocating a temporary std::string object and calling operator<< which performs formatted I/O on text that is already formatted. The number of function calls is reduced to one which, together with std::vformat-like type erasure, results in much smaller binary code (see § 13 Binary code).

Additionally,

> Another problem is formatting of Unicode text:

> std::cout << "Привет, κόσμος!";

> If the source and execution encoding is UTF-8 this will produce the expected output on most GNU/Linux and macOS systems. Unfortunately on Windows it is almost guaranteed to produce mojibake despite the fact that the system is fully capable of printing Unicode

See https://github.com/cplusplus/papers/issues/557

Bringing editions to C++ failed, and I am not aware of anyone trying to tackle the issues https://github.com/cplusplus/papers/issues/631

(I could be wrong though! I follow the committee more than you may guess, but not as much as to think I know everything about what's going on.)

GitHub would not be relevant in this respect because:

* It's owned by a (single) commercial corporation, Microsoft.

* There is censorship both by content and in some respects by country of origin.

* The code is closed.

but otherwise it's an interesting idea.

The C++ standardization committee uses GitHub to track papers submitted to them, see:

https://github.com/cplusplus/papers

There was no non-approval. The facility needs more work, and the authors (and the committee) were focusing on getting print/format done first. I hope that the paper will be worked on again in the future. We will be happy to review it once there is a revision (see github for history)

For more details on what we did at the 2023-06 Varna meeting, the [GitHub issue](https://github.com/cplusplus/papers/issues/328) associated with the paper has a summary.

You subscribe to the Github issue of the proposal: https://github.com/cplusplus/papers/issues