Eli says that
(BTW, Racket's solution is something that is done in many other
> languages too.)
I come from Python where I can write
>>> re.findall("\d{2}", "06/03/2011")
['06', '03', '20', '11']
And printing the string that I used for my regexp gives:
>>> print "\d{2}"
\d{2}
That is writing strings is not exactly the same as writing "strings for a
regexp".
And then below Neil gives a plausible reason to want the syntax to be the
same.
If we are to exploit this consistency, then I see changing my head into
typing double backslashes for special regexps constructs a "price worth
paying" (given a previous background). For fresh minds, this sounds like a
very good idea.
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 23:58, Neil Van Dyke <n...@neilvandyke.org> wrote:
> [...]
>
>
> Also, regexps used to be specified using strings in Racket, and still can
> be, for good reason:
>
> (regexp (string-append "^\\d+ " (regexp-quote some-var) "$"))
>
> #rx"^\\d+"
>
> As a programmer, getting escaping right is hard enough as it is. You
> wouldn't want to do escaping one way for string literals and a different way
> for #rx -- that would be begging for hard-to-find bugs.
[]'s
Rodolfo Carvalho
_________________________________________________
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
