Re: Another regex question

2002-01-14 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 02:14 PM 1/14/2002 +, Simon Cozens wrote: >On Sun, Jan 13, 2002 at 10:05:45PM -0800, Brent Dax wrote: > > There are probably a few other reasons I've overlooked, too. > >Nevertheless, you can't imagine how tempted I've been to link >PCRE into Parrot if available, just for fun. Why not? Som

Re: Another regex question

2002-01-14 Thread Simon Cozens
On Sun, Jan 13, 2002 at 10:05:45PM -0800, Brent Dax wrote: > There are probably a few other reasons I've overlooked, too. Nevertheless, you can't imagine how tempted I've been to link PCRE into Parrot if available, just for fun. -- Disillusion? I can make it for you at home!... Besides, why els

RE: Another regex question

2002-01-13 Thread Brent Dax
Steve Simmons: # On Sun, Jan 13, 2002 at 12:55:26AM -0800, Brent Dax wrote: # > # > It's meant to be a simple fallback for languages that are # too pathetic # > to implement their own regex compiler. ("FooLang should # have regular # > expressions, but I'm too lazy! I'll just use rx_compile!") #

Re: Another regex question

2002-01-13 Thread Steve Simmons
On Sun, Jan 13, 2002 at 12:55:26AM -0800, Brent Dax wrote: > > It's meant to be a simple fallback for languages that are too pathetic > to implement their own regex compiler. ("FooLang should have regular > expressions, but I'm too lazy! I'll just use rx_compile!") Currently > I'm thinking of

Re: Another regex question

2002-01-13 Thread Simon Cozens
On Sun, Jan 13, 2002 at 12:55:26AM -0800, Brent Dax wrote: > Decent languages, like Perl, will probably implement their own > compilers. This will allow them to support special syntaxes (think > (?{}) and the like) and optimize the hell out of things. I'm cool with that. Then don't worry too muc

RE: Another regex question

2002-01-13 Thread Brent Dax
Simon Cozens: # On Sat, Jan 12, 2002 at 12:37:50PM -0800, Brent Dax wrote: # > You sure about that? I've got an rx_compile op slotted # in--would that # > be appropriate? # # Only if every single language hosted by Parrot compiles regexes in the # same way. It's meant to be a simple fallback for

Re: Another regex question

2002-01-13 Thread Simon Cozens
On Sat, Jan 12, 2002 at 12:37:50PM -0800, Brent Dax wrote: > You sure about that? I've got an rx_compile op slotted in--would that > be appropriate? Only if every single language hosted by Parrot compiles regexes in the same way. -- Writing software is more fun than working.

RE: Another regex question

2002-01-12 Thread Brent Dax
Dan Sugalski: # At 10:02 PM 1/11/2002 -0600, David M. Lloyd wrote: # >Just out of curiosity, is the regex compiler going to be # written in Parrot # >or C? # # Probably either perl or C. It'll be considered just another # language by the # parser. You sure about that? I've got an rx_compile op s

Re: Another regex question

2002-01-12 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 10:02 PM 1/11/2002 -0600, David M. Lloyd wrote: >Just out of curiosity, is the regex compiler going to be written in Parrot >or C? Probably either perl or C. It'll be considered just another language by the parser. Dan

Another regex question

2002-01-11 Thread David M. Lloyd
Just out of curiosity, is the regex compiler going to be written in Parrot or C? - D <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>