Robert Brown wrote: > > Rob Dixon writes: > > Robert Brown wrote: > > > > > > Rob Dixon writes: > > > > > > > Tom Kinzer wrote: > > > > > > > I didn't think it was slick at all. In fact I was disappointed that > > > > it looked such a mess, but I don't see a better way. > > > > > > Yes, it is indeed a mess, not only syntacticly, but also semantically. > > > While it might make a good teaching example to show what you can do in > > > a perl regex, it might not be a very good way to do what is ultimately > > > accomplished. > > [ some words deleted here ... ] > > > > My question is, how does perl's regex compiler handle the code you > > > gave? Does it optimize it to a similar level of complexity as my C > > > example, or does it smash it with a one-size-fits-all regular > > > expression engine? I know regular expressions can be highly optimized > > > at compile time, so this is an important question. If the regex is > > > sufficiently optimized, then it would always be the way to go. > > > > Thanks Robert, but I wonder if you expect us to take you seriously? > > In which case I'll happily reply. > > > > Rob > > Yes! Please take my request seriously. I hope you can show me that > the regex approach you used pays no penalty other than perhaps a few > extra miliseconds of compilation time, and that it executes very > efficiently. That is what I want to see. I know it *CAN* > (theoretically) be done; I am just wondering if it indeed has been > done.
Yes, I'd gladly trade in my Honda 750cc for a lightcycle: I know it *CAN* (theoretically) be done. I'm sure you have something useful to say. This seems such a waste of your effort. Rob -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://learn.perl.org/> <http://learn.perl.org/first-response>
