Re: Regexps (was Re: Invalid Operating System)

[prev] [thread] [next] [lurker] [Date index for 2006/12/17]

From: demerphq
Subject: Re: Regexps (was Re: Invalid Operating System)
Date: 18:16 on 17 Dec 2006
On 12/17/06, Robert Rothenberg <robrwo@xxxxx.xxx> wrote:
> On 17/12/06 08:52 Dave Hodgkinson wrote:
>
> > Reach for the root cause: regexps themselves are hateful. Nasy,
> > cryptic line noise.
>
> As has been said in another message, regexps are their own language, which
> has origins in theoretical computer science and mathematics.  Like most
> expressions in mathematics and logic, it looks like "nas[t]y cryptic line
> noice," but it makes sense to those who know how to read it, and it's the
> most efficient means of expressing the concept.
>
> I rather like that many languages and applications have some form regexps,
> so that I do not have to (re)learn a new way of doing the same thing.
>
> I rather hate that I do have to learn annoying (and inconsistent)
> differences between regexp implementations in different applications, for
> example, Perl vs Emacs regexps.

Well, the two come from different eras so its hardly surprising that
they dont match. I mean you'd find it hard to read English from the
15th century, and someone from the 15th century would have the same
troubles reading modern English.

To me using the ancient regexp syntax that emacs uses is about as
sensible as it would be to provide all the config and help pages in
15th century English.

Yves





-- 
perl -Mre=debug -e "/just|another|perl|hacker/"
There's stuff above here

Generated at 22:02 on 27 Dec 2006 by mariachi 0.52