[prev] [thread] [next] [lurker] [Date index for 2006/12/17]
* demerphq <demerphq@xxxxx.xxx> [2006-12-17 19:55]: > >> On 12/17/06, A. Pagaltzis <pagaltzis@xxx.xx> wrote: > >> >Regular expressions are a language in their own right; they > >> >should at least have their own kind of literal. Even Perl > >> >5 is not consistent enough in this regard. > > Im probably being thick, but i dont see the connection between > the two. > > A) You said that Perl doesnt consistantly treat regexps as > a special kind of literal. > > B) Larry says that regexes should be able to call perl code as > easily as perl code can call regexps. > > I dont see the connection between the two, Sorry, the point got butchered while editing. I was saying that even Perl 5 does not treat regular expressions enough as a language in their own right; not that there isn't a consistent enough regex literal in Perl. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>;There's stuff above here
Generated at 22:02 on 27 Dec 2006 by mariachi 0.52