> > > We *do* want to have (with some notation)
> > > [[:digit:]\p{FunkyLooking}aeiou except 7], right?
> >
> > Of course. But that is all resolvable in regex compile time.
> > No expression tree needed.
>
> My point was that if inversion lists are insufficient for describing
> all the character classes we might be interested in, then we'll need
> the tree. And an example of why inversion lists would be insufficient
> is if we have a character API that only allows queries of the sort "is
> this character FunkyLooking or not?", rather than "what ranges of
> characters are FunkyLooking?" (Unless you want to do "is 0
> FunkyLooking? is 1 FunkyLooking? ... is 4294967295 FunkyLooking?" at
> compile time.)
I think the answer to that dilemma is obvious: we do want an API that
tells which ranges FunkyLooking covers.... and guess what: the answers
to such questions can be represented as inversion lists.
> > compile time. (Don't say "locales" or I'll ha've have to hurt you,
> > for your own good. :-)
>
> Was the ' in ha've unintentional, or is that an acute accent mark? :-)
I was aiming for pirate accent. Arrrrrr. Discussing parrots and all.
--
$jhi++; # http://www.iki.fi/jhi/
# There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'.
# It is 'dead'. -- Jack Cohen
