> On Jul 22, 2017, at 12:30 PM, David Storrs <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> One thing that would solve a lot of this issue would be if the pregexp syntax
> added support for named captures as in Perl and the PCRE library that exports
> them.
>
> Alternatively, if 'match' made the results of a successful regexp test
> available to the bodies on the RHS then you could do the same thing by
> accessing the result list. Perhaps if match would allow the RHS to be a
> function?
This could also be a light syntactic abstraction over `cond`:
#lang at-exp racket
(define-syntax (regexp-case stx)
(syntax-case stx (=> else)
[(_ STR [PAT => PROC] ... [else . ELSE-BODY])
#'(cond
[(regexp-match PAT STR) => PROC] ...
[else . ELSE-BODY])]
[(_ STR [PAT => PROC] ...) #'(regexp-case STR [PAT => PROC] ... [else
#f])]))
(define str "[04, foo, 03.5]")
(define pat @(pregexp @~a{\[(\d+),\s*(\w+),\s*([.\d]+)}))
(regexp-case str
[pat => (λ (res) (match-let ([(list _ item-num name price) res])
(println (~a "item name: " name ", number: "
item-num ", price: $" price))))])
(regexp-case "foobar"
[#px"oo.+(.)" => (lambda (res) (println (~a "Regexp match results
were: " res)))])
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Racket Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
