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
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
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!")
#
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
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
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
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.
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
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
