Re: Stupid module and pregexp questions

[tomas]

On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 04:21:10PM -0700, Tom Lord wrote:

[...]

> I have some experience in regexp implementation, so may I offer my
> $0.02?

FWIW I do appreciate yours always :-)

[...]

> b) A really fast and general matcher, like Rx (as in hackerlab C
>    library, not as in the ancient fork on the GNU FTP site), opens a
>    lot of doors.  You can apply dynamically generated regexps to
>    applications that were previously out of reach.   A nice example
>    might be to write parsers for a really rich wiki language.
> 
>    To my mind, opening the door to applications like that through the
>    provision of an extra fancy regexp engine is a neat thing to do --
>    and is a way Guile could differentiate itself from other
>    languages.   At the same time, it takes a lot of code and it's
>    touchy to tune -- so it risks violating the KISS principle.

Two questions pop up:

 - Do you think that it's viable to build Rx into Guile? What about
   the licenses (as Guile is now LGPL)?

 - Do you think a pregexp-like interface to Rx is possible? Something
   along this lines would shorten the path towards a `regexp SRFI',
   right? Do you think ti's desirable? (some on the list think not).

>    And, oh yeah -- you'll want shared substrings to make things really
>    hum along nicely (ahem :-).

Yes, I know. This issue was up on the list for quite a while. I'd be
a friend of shared substrings too (this would give more freedom on
string implementation), but since I don't contribute in this area
I just shut up :-)

Regards
-- tomas