On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 6:12 PM, geremy condra <debat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 4:46 PM, Steven D'Aprano > <st...@remove-this-cybersource.com.au> wrote: > > On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 15:40:51 -0700, geremy condra wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 3:09 PM, Lie Ryan <lie.1...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >>> Nobody complains that python included a regular expression engine in > >>> its standard distribution; so why complain that python included a Tcl > >>> expression engine in its standard distribution. > >> > >> This is a silly argument. > >> > >> REs are not full programming languages, even from a theoretical point of > >> view, > > > > True, but some theoretical extension to REs could be. If I've understood > > correctly, Perl's regexes aren't actually regular expressions any more > > (they're a superset) and might even be Turing Complete. > > I hereby theorize an extension to python that allows it to cook toast. > Therefore, python is a toaster. > I don't agree with the argument that embedding tcl is just another extension language. See http://www.vanderburg.org/OldPages/Tcl/war/0000.html However, I feel I should point out that it is not a theoretical extension to regex's that makes them not regex's anymore. Theoretical regex's are pretty much theoretical regexes - the things that're equivalent to NFA's. But _in_use_ implementations of regex's are _commonly_ more expressive than theoretical regex's - in particular, the ability to memorize an arbitrarily long substring and match it again later in the string goes beyond what an NFA can do.
-- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
