[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Stupid module and pregexp questions
From: |
tomas |
Subject: |
Re: Stupid module and pregexp questions |
Date: |
Tue, 6 May 2003 11:50:52 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.3i |
On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 10:11:53AM -0700, Tom Lord wrote:
>
[about `standard' regexp implementation]
> I realize it's a bit cliche but: the nice thing about regexp standards
> is that there are so many to choose from. Just to throw out some
> observations:
[BTW. Thanks, Tom. You answer a question I posed to you off list]
[Posix vs Perl vs Unicode cons vs Emacs regexps]
[...]
> Maybe that suggestion, to choose a minimalist, truly regular regular
> expression language -- then do the rest in scheme -- satisfies the
> spirit of "do as little as possible in C".
Hm. Technically, the idea sounds quite attractive, in a way. I
see several issues, though.
- This leaves still the question open whether it'd be possible to
have a regexp interface spec which could be fairly portable
across Schemes. It might leave many things unspecified, but it
would have to be powerful/specific enough that people dare to
use it (when trying to write portable Scheme, that is).
- If there is a possibility to provide a ``high level'' interface
resembling more traditional regexp languages, I see no problem.
It's this ``high level'' interface I was talking about (after all
it seems pregexp does *everything* in Scheme).
> Another design dimension to consider: what are Guile's plans re:
> Unicode?
Uh, oh.
Regards
-- tomas
- Re: Stupid module and pregexp questions,
tomas <=