On Oct 7, 11:18 pm, Chouser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is it bad etiquette to reply to myself? I thought it might be useful
> to compare the proposed syntax with that of other languages with good
> regex support.
>
> I tried all the examples from my previous message in Perl, Python,
> Ruby, and JavaScript. All but Python have literal regex syntax, while
> Python has a raw string format that is generally used for regular
> expressions. All but JavaScript have multiple quote characters which
> allowed me to use double quotes just like Clojure:
>
> Clojure: #"foo"
> Perl: m"foo" (although m/foo/ or just /foo/ is more common)
> Python: r"foo" (you can also use r'foo' or r"""foo""")
> Ruby: %r"foo" (or %r/foo/ or just /foo/)
> JS: /foo/
>
> All the examples for the proposed new Clojure syntax work the same in
> all these languages (with the exception of example 4 in JavaScript,
> where \a means a plain letter a instead of ASCII 7). If instead you
> escape things the way you currently have to in Clojure, many of the
> expressions don't work or mean something different in the other
> languages.
>
> In other words, under the proposed syntax Clojure regex literals would
> be less surprising for people used to any of these other languages.
>
Will existing Clojure regex (consumer) code need to change, i.e. will
people need to modify their existing #"" literals and if so in what
way?
Rich
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
