[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: |
Tue, 29 Apr 2003 23:31:41 -0700 (PDT) |
> 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)?
Rx is GPL, currently. I have a desparate need for cash. So that's
one route.
If I independently overcame my desparate need for cash, I'd certainly
consider a Guile-friendly license agreement gratis if there was
serious interest in it.
But Rx ain't cheap -- it's a lot of code, and a lot of run-time
memory. Alas, it isn't a "no brainer" choice -- it's a genuine case
of "which trade-offs do you prefer?" So I don't mean to be saying
"obviously guile should be using Rx." I only mean to report my good
experiences with it in the limited context of systas scheme.
> - Do you think a pregexp-like interface to Rx is possible?
I'm not familiar with pregexp, specifically. Rx has a few layers.
It's pretty general. It's extended take on Posix syntax is pretty
flexible. I doubt there'd be any problem here.
> 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).
Regexps are pretty freekin fundamental. I think a SRFI is a good
idea. Ironically, I think Olin's SRE's do 80% of the job :-)
>> 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 :-)
Contribute? Heck, they were actively excised -- apparently by virtue
of some (sorry, folks) misguided reasoning about the cleanliness of
their semantics. (As I recall: "Gosh, if you modify a shared
substring, you hose the containing string," (though, of course, that's
actually useful.))
-t
Re: Stupid module and pregexp questions, Robert Uhl, 2003/04/28
- Re: Stupid module and pregexp questions, MJ Ray, 2003/04/29
- Re: Stupid module and pregexp questions, Tom Lord, 2003/04/29
- Re: Stupid module and pregexp questions, Ken Anderson, 2003/04/29
- Re: Stupid module and pregexp questions, tomas, 2003/04/30
- Re: Stupid module and pregexp questions,
Tom Lord <=
- Re: Stupid module and pregexp questions, Tom Lord, 2003/04/30
Re: Stupid module and pregexp questions, Thien-Thi Nguyen, 2003/04/30
Re: Stupid module and pregexp questions, tomas, 2003/04/30
Re: Stupid module and pregexp questions, Tom Lord, 2003/04/30
Re: Stupid module and pregexp questions, Robert Uhl, 2003/04/30