At 11:06 AM 11/4/2001 -0800, Brent Dax wrote:
>Dan Sugalski:
># While I'm not going to dive too deep into regexes (I like what little
># sanity I have left, thanks :), here are a few opcodes I've
>
>Oh, c'mon, they're not that bad. It's basically just "if this works, do
>the next thing, otherwise go back and do some stuff over". "Do some
>stuff over" is just popping a position off a stack and branching back to
>the op that should be done over. Even lookaheads aren't really that
>bad--you just push the current position onto the RE stack and make sure
>you return to it when the lookahead is finished. (Unless I'm missing
>something, which is certainly possible...)
I'm just scarred (for life) from digging into perl 5's RE engine, I think. ;)
>Have you looked at the regexp patch I posted last night?
Not really. That's partially for lack of time, and partially because I've
no opinion to speak of on 'em, so I figure it's best to let the people
who're interested go for it and see what they come up with.
>It's pretty
>much functional, including reOneof. Still, these could be useful
>internal functions... *ponder*
I was thinking that the places they could come in really handy for were
character classes. \w, \s, and \d are potentially a lot faster this way,
'specially if you throw in Unicode support. (The sets get rather a bit
larger...) It also may make some character-set independence easier.
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
