Hi Brent,
>
> It just means you have to be more explicit. I consider that a Good
> Thing--Perl 5's regular expressions are compact enough to be represented
> like: but the internals to support them are an absolute jungle. I'd rather
> have a few exposed ops than have a chunk of code like Perl 5
Angel Faus:
# ># I have been uncapable of expressing nested groups or
# ># alternation with your model, and I would say that this
# ># is because the engine needs some way to save not only
# ># the index into the string, but also the point of the
# ># regex where it can branch on a backtack.
#
# >
Hi Brent,
># I have been uncapable of expressing nested groups or
># alternation with your model, and I would say that this
># is because the engine needs some way to save not only
># the index into the string, but also the point of the
># regex where it can branch on a backtack.
>I've been a bi
Angel Faus:
# Since your ops are much complete and better documented that
# the ones I sent,
# I was trying to adapt my previous regex compiler to your ops,
# but I found
# what i think might be a limitation of your model.
#
# It looks to me that for compiling down regexp to usual
# opcodes there
Brent Dax :
> Okay, this bunch of ops is a serious attempt at regular expressions. I
> had a discussion with japhy on this in the Monastery
> (http://www.perlmonks.org/index.pl?node_id=122784), and I've come up
> with something flexible enough to actually (maybe) work. Attached is a
> patch to
