At 04:34 PM 11/5/2001 -0800, Steve Fink wrote:
>Quoting Dan Sugalski ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > At 11:54 AM 11/5/2001 -0800, Steve Fink wrote:
> > > > >It's pretty
> > > > >much functional, including reOneof. Still, these could be useful
> > > > >internal functions... *ponder*
> > > >
> > > > I was
Quoting Dan Sugalski ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> At 11:54 AM 11/5/2001 -0800, Steve Fink wrote:
> > > >It's pretty
> > > >much functional, including reOneof. Still, these could be useful
> > > >internal functions... *ponder*
> > >
> > > I was thinking that the places they could come in really handy fo
At 11:54 AM 11/5/2001 -0800, Steve Fink wrote:
> > >It's pretty
> > >much functional, including reOneof. Still, these could be useful
> > >internal functions... *ponder*
> >
> > I was thinking that the places they could come in really handy for were
> > character classes. \w, \s, and \d are poten
> >It's pretty
> >much functional, including reOneof. Still, these could be useful
> >internal functions... *ponder*
>
> I was thinking that the places they could come in really handy for were
> character classes. \w, \s, and \d are potentially a lot faster this way,
> 'specially if you throw
At 11:06 AM 11/4/2001 -0800, Brent Dax wrote:
>Dan Sugalski:
># While I'm not going to dive too deep into regexes (I like what little
># sanity I have left, thanks :), here are a few opcodes I've
>
>Oh, c'mon, they're not that bad. It's basically just "if this works, do
>the next thing, otherwise
Dan Sugalski:
# While I'm not going to dive too deep into regexes (I like what little
# sanity I have left, thanks :), here are a few opcodes I've
Oh, c'mon, they're not that bad. It's basically just "if this works, do
the next thing, otherwise go back and do some stuff over". "Do some
stuff ov
