f On Fri, Jun 07, 2002 at 05:10:49PM -0400, Trey Harris wrote: > In a message dated Fri, 7 Jun 2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > The most serious objection to this was 'well, use modules for matching *ml" - > > which simply points out that the current incarnation of perl6 regex doesn' > > t handle a very large class of matching problems very well. > > I don't think that's what people were saying at all. They were saying you > should use modules, not because it's too hard to do in Perl 6 regexes, but > because *ml are well-formed, well-published languages and it doesn't make > sense to reinvent the wheel when you're nearly certain to miss cases > handled by the standard modules.
hmm. I thought that was perl's forte - doing quick and dirty, small scripts. No matter how intuitive, well thought-out, or polished, working through a module is always going to be more restrictive than doing it through a regular expression. It might be better in some cases, yes, but sometimes you just want the freedom to do stuff by hand. > Unless I'm missing something, I'm assuming that those modules, when > rewritten in Perl 6, will be able to dump the specialized parsers and go > to using grammars as given in A5. No, you're not missing anything. I just don't want to be forced to be used modules/rules, that's all. And I *don't* want to backslash every damn $@#$% < I see in a XML document. We have syntactic sugar to stop people from having to backslash \ in window's paths, to stop people from having to backslash / inside of regular expressions. I'd argue that being able to match *ml cleanly (and without modules or rules or APIs) would be a hell of a lot more important. Ed ( ps - and no, I don't want to be forced to go back to use perl5's regex. If people do, that just shows the shortcomings of the perl6 system, IMO )
