Dan Sugalski wrote: > I expect we'd want to have some sort of heavy-duty regex optimizer, then, > to detect common prefixes and subexpressions and suchlike things, otherwise > we end up with a rather monstrous alternation sequence... We need a regex merge function too -- then we could write macros that extend the parser. Domain languages! Lexically scoped of course. ;) Obviously we're going to need a new expansion for "regex" because these things aren't regular expressions anymore. (Not that Perl has had regular expressions for a long time...) Really easy grammar experiments? - Ken
- Re: RFCs (Re: Ideas that need... David L. Nicol
- Re: RFCs (Re: Ideas that need RFC... skud
- Re: RFCs (Re: Ideas that need RFC... John Porter
- Re: Ideas that need RFCs? Decklin Foster
- Re: Ideas that need RFCs? Steve Fink
- Re: Ideas that need RFCs? Damian Conway
- Re: Ideas that need RFCs? Dan Sugalski
- Re: Ideas that need RFCs? Larry Wall
- Re: Ideas that need RFCs? David Corbin
- Re: Ideas that need RFCs? Dan Sugalski
- Re: Ideas that need RFCs? Ken Fox
- Re: Ideas that need RFCs? Joe McMahon
- Re: Ideas that need RFCs? Randal L. Schwartz
- Re: Ideas that need RFCs? Larry Wall
- Re: Ideas that need RFCs? Nathan Torkington
- Re: Ideas that need RFCs? Damian Conway