On Fri, 2004-09-24 at 16:58, Edward Peschko wrote:
> Ok, ok, I'll give you that point ... lets call them 'intimately related' and
> leave it at that... if you say "3 foo" and your algorithm goes:
>
> "3 foo" => 3 => "2"
>
> then you know something is desperately wrong.
Yes, and you know
> >>>just like the transformation of a string into a number, and from a
> >>>number to a string. Two algorithmically different things as well,
> >>>but they'd damn-well better be exact inverses of the
> >>>other.
> >>
> >>But they're not:
> >>
> >> " 3 foo" --> 3 --> "3"
> >
> >I'd say that tha
Rod Adams writes:
> Edward Peschko wrote:
>
> > Running a regular expression in reverse has IMO the best potential
> > for making regexes transparent - you graphically see how they work
> > and what they match.
>
> I have to disagree here.
For what it's worth, I agree with your disagreement --
On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 11:36:43AM -0500, Rod Adams wrote:
> Output would be a step by step graph of the internal logic used to match
> / not match the string. I'd break the RE up into the same pieces the
> Engine does, then show how that subrule matched char a, then char b, but
> failed to matc
Pardon if this has already come up. I only found one prior reference in
my search.
There's a section in S5 about "Matching against non-strings", but it
really only addresses matching against strings that are retrieved
dynamically from tied values.
Some operations in a rule operate on string value
Juerd wrote:
Austin Hastings skribis 2004-09-24 12:05 (-0400):
Actually, that raises a good point: Should "3 foo" convert to number 3,
or should it convert to C<3 but remainder(" foo")> ?
Would the remainder then be dropped when the numeric value changes?
I assume that replacing the valu
Austin Hastings skribis 2004-09-24 12:05 (-0400):
> Actually, that raises a good point: Should "3 foo" convert to number 3,
> or should it convert to C<3 but remainder(" foo")> ?
Would the remainder then be dropped when the numeric value changes?
Juerd
Edward Peschko wrote:
Well, there re two responses to the "that's not a common thing to want to do":
1) its not a common thing to want to do because its not a useful thing to do.
2) its not a common thing to want to do because its too damn difficult to do.
I'd say that #2 is what holds. *Ever
Jeff Clites wrote:
> On Sep 23, 2004, at 5:27 PM, Edward Peschko wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 08:15:08AM -0700, Jeff Clites wrote:
>>
just like the transformation of a string into a number, and from a
number to a string. Two algorithmically different t
From: Edward Peschko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Jeff Clites <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bcc:
Subject: Re: S5 updated
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To:
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
ok,
I'm going to answer both you and Luke in the same message to save tim
10 matches
Mail list logo
