[prev] [thread] [next] [lurker] [Date index for 2006/12/18]
--u3/rZRmxL6MmkK24
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sun, Dec 17, 2006 at 11:07:50PM -0800, Yoz Grahame wrote:
> On 12/17/06, Robert Rothenberg <robrwo@xxxxx.xxx> wrote:
> >
> >Bad comparison: traditional regexps are much easier to read than the ones
> >used in contemporary programming languages.
>=20
> PCRE-style regexp in Javascript:
> regexp =3D /(\d{1,3}\.){3}\d{1,3}/;
>=20
> Traditional POSIX regexp in C:
> char regexp[] =3D "\\([:digit:]\{1,3\}\\.\\)\\{3\\}[:digit:]\\{1,3\\}";
>=20
> The second one is clearly the more horrific of the two hateful messes,
> but I'll give you that it's *way* more fun to type if you just can't
> get enough joyful bouncing on the backslash key.
> (And traditional POSIX holds an even deeper hate - backslashes EITHER
> switch a character from being a literal to a metacharacter, OR from a
> metacharacter to a literal, depending on the character in question.
> Consistency's for suckers, clearly.)
Well, so does Perl, and so your PCRE example. The latter backslashes
the d, turning the literal d into a metacharacter, and it backslashes
the ., turning the metacharacter . into the literal .
Abigail
--u3/rZRmxL6MmkK24
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFhnjpBOh7Ggo6rasRAuaTAJ9SJas4GjntFktXE1i0h4qOpKg/NwCfQxGP
FupENbvHuIQEPmHyLx6TKz0=
=EZ+v
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--u3/rZRmxL6MmkK24--
There's stuff above here
Generated at 22:02 on 27 Dec 2006 by mariachi 0.52