[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Stupid module and pregexp questions
From: |
Tom Lord |
Subject: |
Re: Stupid module and pregexp questions |
Date: |
Sun, 4 May 2003 23:18:08 -0700 (PDT) |
>> I have some experience in regexp implementation, so may I offer my
>> $0.02?
> Much appreciated, in fact.
Thanks. Let me therefore use up my good karma and overstep my bounds:
> With respect to which syntax we might choose, I don't really have a
> strong preference for one or the other, but my default inclination
> might be libpcre since it's the syntax that both perl and python
> support
You can not lead by following. You can not hack without
understanding. </Thien-Thi-mode>
(Ahem!) The distinction between PCRE and other matchers (posix
matchers in genral, Rx specifically - is not _syntactic_. It's
semantic and has deep implications for implementation techniques and
performance, in both short and long time frames. So, choices you make
today, assuming that guile persists and spreads, have _long_ term
consequences.
Now, to be sure, a little compatibility here and there can get people
to make leaps from here to there. I could point, for example, to
emacs' "posix-looking-at": it's a compatibility hack that's "off to
the side", but there when you need it.
Guile-dialect regexp choices should be (imho) no less casual than,
say, number-tower choices.
-t