> > > 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