On 14 Oct 2003, Robert Cummings wrote: > Why would this make regular expressions more widespread? I would expect > that regular expressions are used wherever necessary and otherwise not > used, regardless of syntax. Or are you saying because regex matching is > invoked via a function that you don't use regex? In such a case I'd have > to ask what you use instead!?
Following that logic, why would anyone prefer one Turing-complete language over another? They only differ in their syntax. :) Okay, this is an extreme example. However, I think it is safe to say that language syntax and grammar cause users to exhibit a tendency to use one set of techniques in comparison to another. As a general rule, PHP's operators (i.e. funny looking punctuation) are easily recognizable basics; its functions (i.e. letters with () at the end) are ones that need more clarify of identification at the expense of extra letters. (Not exactly, but I'm generalizing here.) I guess the real questions here (to me) is are regular expressions a common enough action and is "=~" a common enough symbol that it's worth a decrease in clarity? I don't know. Regular expressions have certainly shown their frequent usefulness. I've always hated =~ as a symbol, but with Perl's popularity, it doesn't really makes sense to choose anything else. In the 70s, regular expressions were expensive, so languages like C didn't include a regex operator. Why should we be bound by the decisions of K&R and strongly typed languages? At some point, languages moved away from the Lisp camp, where everything was a word. Lisp is super verbose, but I don't see people advocating for a return, even if we got rid of all the stupid (()())s. As Dave said, we added === when no other language in the world has that. Why would =~ be necessarily more confusing? -adam -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
