Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from August 2000
From: Ilya Zakharevich [mailto:ilya@math.ohio-state.edu] > > You know too much. In this whole discussion you refuse to *unlearn* > your knowledge of NFA and backtracking. You still refer to the "match > as a process which progresses in time". I consider the discovery that > this is *not nessary* as one of my largest contributions to the Perl > REx arena [*]. [For an alternative - and magnificently failing - > POSIX-related approach see TCL's engine.] > > You are still free to think in the terms of backtracking, if this is > more convenient to you. However, any change to the REx engine which > *requires* one to think in terms of backtracking is a significant step > back. Ooh. I think my understanding of Perl's REs just went up a notch. I aldo need to go back and read some more of your earlier postings, to see if I follow your point of view better. BTW, I like the idea of Jeffrey's \v and \V operators. They remind me of Prolog. But your recent explanation of your \F idea sounds like it could be as powerful, if not more so. But I'm not sure I understand either idea well enough to judge between them. Can either of you put together a fuller explanation of your idea (preferably with reasonably simple, real-life examples)? I'm trying to follow, but my brain is starting to melt... Paul. PS There's some level at which all of this is just an indication that we are reaching the point where we are trying to force too much power into the RE sublanguage, and we'd be better advised to stop and rethink matching as a whole. Those who see value in this should look at SNOBOL and Icon as a start...Thread Previous | Thread Next