> > If the generator was used as the primary way to testing the regex > > engine, do you really think that any of these limitations would > > exist? > > Sigh. [Because] seems to have flown right by you.
Ok, I think this thing has pretty much played itself out, but I hate ending on a misunderstanding. So I hope that this post clears things up. Two points: 1) [Because] has not 'flown right past me'. I realize that "we're an open source project" and that putting it in the core doesn't make it "magically implemented". 2) I realize that there are three options: operator, core-module and CPAN module. Just to be clear, what I'm arguing is that, by putting it in the core, and by adopting a rigorous methodology that requires testing regex and generator - feature for feature - you *do* pretty much get the development of the generator for free. Why? Because - collectively - in the long run you save more time with the rigorous regression testing than you spend in developing the generator. Yes, I'm willing to put together a prototype, and extend Regexp::Genex for perl5. And I'm also willing to bounce ideas and syntax off of the perl6 list, and put a prototype together for perl6. And, yes, if the module/operator was accepted for core I'd help maintain it. But since its a timesaver in any case, I *shouldn't* need to be intimately tied to it. An idea is an idea - and there are lots of good 'vaporware' ones listed in perl6's apocalypses right now. At some point, Larry is going to have to prioritize them. I sincerely doubt that rev 1 of the language is going to include everything listed there.. So why not list it if not just as a reminder of its existence? Anyway, I'm going to give this a bit more of a think. I still believe its better off as an operator, but I see that this idea needs some work to be truly convincing. Ed ( ps - is YAPE::Regex the best regular expression parser out there? I sort of shudder at the idea of parsing perl5's regular expression syntax from scratch... )