From: Edward Peschko [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Jeff Clites [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bcc:
Subject: Re: S5 updated
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To:
In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ok,
I'm going to answer both you and Luke in the same message to save time.
I'm
Jeff Clites wrote:
On Sep 23, 2004, at 5:27 PM, Edward Peschko wrote:
On Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 08:15:08AM -0700, Jeff Clites wrote:
just like the transformation of a string into a number, and from a
number to a string. Two algorithmically different things as well,
Edward Peschko wrote:
Well, there re two responses to the that's not a common thing to want to do:
1) its not a common thing to want to do because its not a useful thing to do.
2) its not a common thing to want to do because its too damn difficult to do.
I'd say that #2 is what holds.
Austin Hastings skribis 2004-09-24 12:05 (-0400):
Actually, that raises a good point: Should 3 foo convert to number 3,
or should it convert to C3 but remainder( foo) ?
Would the remainder then be dropped when the numeric value changes?
Juerd
Juerd wrote:
Austin Hastings skribis 2004-09-24 12:05 (-0400):
Actually, that raises a good point: Should 3 foo convert to number 3,
or should it convert to C3 but remainder( foo) ?
Would the remainder then be dropped when the numeric value changes?
I assume that replacing the value
Pardon if this has already come up. I only found one prior reference in
my search.
There's a section in S5 about Matching against non-strings, but it
really only addresses matching against strings that are retrieved
dynamically from tied values.
Some operations in a rule operate on string
On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 11:36:43AM -0500, Rod Adams wrote:
Output would be a step by step graph of the internal logic used to match
/ not match the string. I'd break the RE up into the same pieces the
Engine does, then show how that subrule matched char a, then char b, but
failed to match
Rod Adams writes:
Edward Peschko wrote:
Running a regular expression in reverse has IMO the best potential
for making regexes transparent - you graphically see how they work
and what they match.
I have to disagree here.
For what it's worth, I agree with your disagreement -- and you
On Fri, 2004-09-24 at 16:58, Edward Peschko wrote:
Ok, ok, I'll give you that point ... lets call them 'intimately related' and
leave it at that... if you say 3 foo and your algorithm goes:
3 foo = 3 = 2
then you know something is desperately wrong.
Yes, and you know that because
