Rod Adams writes: > Edward Peschko wrote: > > > Running a regular expression in reverse has IMO the best potential > > for making regexes transparent - you graphically see how they work > > and what they match. > > I have to disagree here.
For what it's worth, I agree with your disagreement -- and you making those points certainly saved me some typing! > > There's simply no way to graphically show regexes now. > > Ahh... Now this is the real problem. People need someway to better see > how a given RE attacks a given string. I see potential for a > standalone program that acts as a "RE analyzer". <Snip> That sounds very similar to what ActiveState are doing right now with their stand-alone 'Rx Toolkit', which illustrates Perl 5 regexps, and seems much more useful than I could imagine a generator being: http://xrl.us/rxtoolkitpic http://activestate.com/Products/Komodo/more_information.plex (But Edward, feel free to prove me wrong by writing a Perl 5 regexp generator. Yes, it would have to be stand-alone and re-implement the logic that's in the internal regexp engine, so wouldn't have the advantages of being in core -- but as a proof-of-concept it would work, and be sufficient for gauging how useful people find it.) Smylers
