At 11:52 AM 8/2/00 -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
>Graham Barr writes:
> > Why would the fuzzy regex not be done this way ?
>
>I have some small objections:
>
>I think one regexp syntax with potentially wildly variable
>interpretations is a dangerous thing. If we want fuzzy
>regexp matching, eit
Graham Barr writes:
> Why would the fuzzy regex not be done this way ?
I have some small objections:
I think one regexp syntax with potentially wildly variable
interpretations is a dangerous thing. If we want fuzzy
regexp matching, either put it into the core's re engine
or make it a module tha
Tim Bunce wrote:
>
> How does "use My::New:Regex;" differ from "use Foo::Bar;"?
>
> If a module is written to require "more crap that someone would have to
> install" then that's the way it's been written. That fact that that crap
> includes a new regex module is no different from that crap incl
On Wed, Aug 02, 2000 at 12:33:05AM -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> Tim Bunce writes:
> > If people *want* to say "use My::New:Regex;" and have that install a
> > new regex implementation for that lexical scope then we should allow
> > that.
>
> I don't hear a good reason for why we'd want this.
On Wed, Aug 02, 2000 at 12:33:05AM -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
>
> > If people *want* to say "use My::New:Regex;" and have that install a
> > new regex implementation for that lexical scope then we should allow
> > that.
>
> I don't hear a good reason for why we'd want this. All I can see i
Tim Bunce writes:
> > >The word "pluggable" gives me the willies. I feel like things like
> > >REs should have one blessed implementation and set of capabilities.
>
> The key point here is *one blessed implementation*.
(nat as nat)
When I said that, I was keeping in mind that we might have mul
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 05:23:27PM +0200, Dominic Dunlop wrote:
> At 15:19 +0100 2000-08-01, Tim Bunce wrote:
> > >RegEx (internals?)
> >
> >Yes, Yes, Yes.
>
> I could argue for regex being language too:
> If the language group is
> going to give each of perl's reserved words (and much
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 01:28:09PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 11:01 AM 8/1/00 -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> >The word "pluggable" gives me the willies. I feel like things like
> >REs should have one blessed implementation and set of capabilities.
The key point here is *one blessed imple
At 11:01 -0600 2000-08-01, Nathan Torkington wrote:
>Dominic Dunlop writes:
>> Pluggable regex engines would make supporting (say) core and optional
>> regex language features easier.
>
>(Nat qua Nat speaking)
>
>The word "pluggable" gives me the willies. I feel like things like
>REs should hav
>Perl's regex syntax in not poorly documented (IMHO, of couse).
Some of the new stuff is. (Poorly documented, that is.)
>MRE made me feel like a ghod (after I read chapter 7 for the third time ;)
Some of the new stuff's not in MRE, which is, I suppose, partly why
Jeffrey Friedl's working on a
At 11:01 AM 8/1/00 -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
>The word "pluggable" gives me the willies. I feel like things like
>REs should have one blessed implementation and set of capabilities. I
>don't want to have four modules in my program, each of which requires
>a different RE engine.
I very muc
Dominic Dunlop writes:
> Pluggable regex engines would make supporting (say) core and optional
> regex language features easier.
(Nat qua Nat speaking)
The word "pluggable" gives me the willies. I feel like things like
REs should have one blessed implementation and set of capabilities. I
don'
-Original Message-
From: Dominic Dunlop [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
previously difficult or impossible (or merely verbose). But it's
also more or less poorly documented, more or less poorly understood,
more or less well-used, and more or less poorly tested. (Indeed,
some of it's sti
At 15:19 +0100 2000-08-01, Tim Bunce wrote:
> >RegEx (internals?)
>
>Yes, Yes, Yes.
I could argue for regex being language too: it's a little language,
and it's got very crufty of late. Yes, it's sexy cruft which can be
justified because it allows one to do neat things which were
pre
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 07:03:42AM -0400, Grant M. wrote:
> Just trying to catch up. This is where I understand the discussion
> stands:
> INTERNALS(?)
> modular language:
>Scanner/Symbol Table/Parser/Executor
Internals.
>Standard Functions separate from core (moving to langu
Just trying to catch up. This is where I understand the discussion
stands:
INTERNALS(?)
modular language:
Scanner/Symbol Table/Parser/Executor
Standard Functions separate from core (moving to language?)
Modules Separate from everything (definitely language)
Strict(er)
16 matches
Mail list logo
