On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 05:23:27PM +0200, Dominic Dunlop wrote:
> At 15:19 +0100 2000-08-01, Tim Bunce wrote:
> > >RegEx (internals?)
> >
> >Yes, Yes, Yes.
>
> I could argue for regex being language too:
> If the language group is
> going to give each of perl's reserved words (and much
>Perl's regex syntax in not poorly documented (IMHO, of couse).
Some of the new stuff is. (Poorly documented, that is.)
>MRE made me feel like a ghod (after I read chapter 7 for the third time ;)
Some of the new stuff's not in MRE, which is, I suppose, partly why
Jeffrey Friedl's working on a
At 15:19 +0100 2000-08-01, Tim Bunce wrote:
> >RegEx (internals?)
>
>Yes, Yes, Yes.
I could argue for regex being language too: it's a little language,
and it's got very crufty of late. Yes, it's sexy cruft which can be
justified because it allows one to do neat things which were
pre
-Original Message-
From: Dominic Dunlop [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
previously difficult or impossible (or merely verbose). But it's
also more or less poorly documented, more or less poorly understood,
more or less well-used, and more or less poorly tested. (Indeed,
some of it's sti
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 07:03:42AM -0400, Grant M. wrote:
> Just trying to catch up. This is where I understand the discussion
> stands:
> INTERNALS(?)
> modular language:
>Scanner/Symbol Table/Parser/Executor
Internals.
>Standard Functions separate from core (moving to langu
Just trying to catch up. This is where I understand the discussion
stands:
INTERNALS(?)
modular language:
Scanner/Symbol Table/Parser/Executor
Standard Functions separate from core (moving to language?)
Modules Separate from everything (definitely language)
Strict(er)
