John Cowan wrote:
>
> Tex Texin scripsit:
>
> > Why would you want them to be for internal-use only? When you exchange
> > regular expressions wouldn't you want operators such as "any character"
> > to be passed as well, and standardized so that there is agreement on the
> > meaning of the expression?
>
> Regular expressions are usually interchanged using (some approximation of)
> Posix syntax, so as "abc.*\*", not "abc<ANY><STAR>*". Note the phrase
> "compiled form" in my posting.
Seems like a very minor optimization then. (I am not saying undesirable,
just it is a small benefit.)
>
> > It is also not clear to me that it is desirable to encode operators of
> > regular expressions as individual characters, because then you get into
> > the slippery slope of encoding operators for every function that someone
> > might want, and that is what started this thread isn't it...
>
> Ah, but for internal use you can do what you want with the 66 non-characters
> and the 4 pseudo-non-characters.
Yes. Same thing is true for higher level protocols.
>
> > (But a Unicode APL operator set would be nice. ;-) )
>
> Um, we have one of those, don't we?
Sorry, I was unclear. I meant this in the context of encoding a set of
APL-like operators for working on Unicode text to manipulate them in
regular expressions, going way beyond the "any character", "0 or more
character" operators.
tex
>
> --
> John Cowan
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I am a member of a civilization. --David Brin
--
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tex Texin cell: +1 781 789 1898 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Xen Master http://www.i18nGuy.com
XenCraft http://www.XenCraft.com
Making e-Business Work Around the World
-------------------------------------------------------------
