On Wed, 2004-10-13 at 10:44, Matt Fowles wrote:
> I am of the opinion that we should treat regular expression as simply
> another language. Thus one can register different compilers for
> different regex syntaxes and we do not need to add more opcodes for
> them.
That is essentially what I've pr
On Wed, 2004-10-13 at 10:29, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> Aaron Sherman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I've done quite a lot of thinking about Parrot's rx_compile op, as I was
> > thinking about implementing it.
>
> Given that rx_compile syntax and semantics aren't really final and
> second that compi
Leo~
I am of the opinion that we should treat regular expression as simply
another language. Thus one can register different compilers for
different regex syntaxes and we do not need to add more opcodes for
them. This also has the advantage of placing their internals in a
black box off to the si
Aaron Sherman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've done quite a lot of thinking about Parrot's rx_compile op, as I was
> thinking about implementing it.
Given that rx_compile syntax and semantics aren't really final and
second that compiling a rx takes substantial time, I'd do something like
this:
I've done quite a lot of thinking about Parrot's rx_compile op, as I was
thinking about implementing it. However, I've come to the conclusion
that the definition of the op as it stands is too shallow. Please
consider this definition and let me know if implementing it would be
worth it to Parrot as
