Lamar Owen wrote: > Of course, if the existing one is DFA, and the replacement is NFA, > then some regexes may break in subtle ways.... See the O'Reilly regex book > for details on how deterministic finite automatons and non-deterministic > finite automatons differ from the point of view of crafting regexes.
Can you elaborate on this? I know the theory behind this, and am a bit confused by the statment. It is pretty straightforward to convert a DFA into an RE. The textbook method for converting an RE into a DFA is RE -> NFA+e moves -> NFA -> DFA. You then can perform minimization of the DFA to get the optimum one. -- Matthew Donadio ([EMAIL PROTECTED])