Text::Trie is an amazing little module. I've abused it in a macro processing
source filter to build optimum regexps out of lists of tokens.
I've attached a proof-of-concept/benchmark program using the interesting bits
from POE::Preprocessor to build, test, and time regexps. Results of a sample
On Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 01:29:27PM -0500, Rocco Caputo wrote:
> Text::Trie is an amazing little module. I've abused it in a macro processing
> source filter to build optimum regexps out of lists of tokens.
Have you tried out Regex::PreSuf?
I tried making a monster regexp out of /usr/dict/words
On Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 05:17:47PM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 11:09:03AM -0500, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
> > > "ST" == Sam Tregar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Look throught the RFCs this was one of Damian Conway's.
> >
> > =~ /RFC/
>
> http://dev.perl.org/rfc/9
Okay, here's a question for those of you with more experience at parsers
than I have. (Which would be about everyone)
Is there any reasonable case where we would need to backtrack over
successfully parsed source and redo the parsing? I'm not talking about the
case where regular expressions run
On Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 04:41:34PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> Okay, here's a question for those of you with more experience at parsers
> than I have. (Which would be about everyone)
>
> Is there any reasonable case where we would need to backtrack over
> successfully parsed source and redo th
Look throught the RFCs this was one of Damian Conway's.
=~ /RFC/
> "ST" == Sam Tregar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
ST> On Wed, 22 Nov 2000, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>> Probably the easiest thing is to implement some sort of file-tied scalar or
>> something that can provide bytes to the regex eng
At 04:50 PM 11/27/00 -0500, Kurt D. Starsinic wrote:
>On Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 04:41:34PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > Okay, here's a question for those of you with more experience at parsers
> > than I have. (Which would be about everyone)
> >
> > Is there any reasonable case where we would need
While I'm not sure of the structure of the internals of the parsing piece
of perl at the moment (and, unfortunately, language parsers aren't one of
my strong points), I am reasonably certain of the interface we'll present
to the rest of the world and the other pieces of perl. So... comments?
-
On Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 05:03:05PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 04:50 PM 11/27/00 -0500, Kurt D. Starsinic wrote:
> >On Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 04:41:34PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > In current perl, we do something _like_ that to disambiguate certain
> >situations. Grep the sources for `
> [I'm assuming that you're implying that regular files (determinate length,
> seekable) are easy so we don't worry about optimising them until we make the
> harder stuff work. So we forget I ever sent that last paragraph for some
You mean I cannot start up the parser on a socket and feed it perl
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there any reasonable case where we would need to backtrack over
> successfully parsed source and redo the parsing? I'm not talking about the
> case where regular expressions run over text and ultimately fail, bu
On Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 11:49:30PM +, Tom Hughes wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Is there any reasonable case where we would need to backtrack over
> > successfully parsed source and redo the parsing? I'm not talking about the
At 12:29 AM 11/25/00 -0500, Sam Tregar wrote:
>On Fri, 24 Nov 2000, Nicholas Clark wrote:
>
> > I think Dan was suggesting that the (user side) regex doesn't change at all
> > (so that's no new syntax there)
> > It's just that the innards of perl gains a tied scalar that doesn't
> actually
> > re
On Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 11:09:03AM -0500, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
> > "ST" == Sam Tregar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Look throught the RFCs this was one of Damian Conway's.
>
> =~ /RFC/
http://dev.perl.org/rfc/93.html
I know I read it, I just don't remember reading it.
IMPLEMENTATION
At 05:17 PM 11/27/00 +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> > > "ST" == Sam Tregar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > ST> Perhaps we really need a new kind of regex that works by-design against
> > ST> streams of bytes?
>
>I don't think any change is needed in the regex syntax. I think just being
>carefu
15 matches
Mail list logo
