Re: Stupid module and pregexp questions

[Rob Browning]

Tom Lord <address@hidden> writes:

> We were slightly talking at cross purposes: when I concluded that you
> should really consider starting with a minimalist truly-regular
> pattern language, I was thinking beyond just (ice-9 regex) -- for
> example, what would we want in a regex srfi?
> 
> ...
> 
> To my ears, that's different from just thinking about what backs up
> (ice-9 regex).    That should be more at the level of "What would a
> good regex SRFI do?"   And I stand by my answer there: none of the
> standard regexp languages are any good, though the XML Schema version
> comes closest.   A pattern language that managed to be truly a regular
> expression language in the CS-theory sense is the only sane basis 
> for something like an SRE approach.

Right.  I definitely see two issues here, a short term one and a long
term one.  I was currently focused on the former, i.e. how do we get
(ice-9 regex) to have invariant behavior across platforms.  I
completely agree that this still leaves open the very interesting
question, "what would a good regex SRFI do?".

With respect (ice-9 regex), I'm inclined to agree with you.  If we can
include a good POSIX implementation, then that should fix the problems
I've been asking about.

Thanks again for the very interesting comments.

-- 
Rob Browning
rlb @defaultvalue.org, @linuxdevel.com, and @debian.org
Previously @cs.utexas.edu
GPG starting 2002-11-03 = 14DD 432F AE39 534D B592  F9A0 25C8 D377 8C7E 73A4