Re: Stupid module and pregexp questions

[tomas@fabula.de]

On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 11:06:24AM -0500, Rob Browning wrote:
> MJ Ray <markj@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
> 

[...]

[about letting configure find whatever regexp lib is there]

> If so, then it'd be nice to have a truly invariant regex
> lib that we can rely on.  Without that, it's hard to write portable
> scripts.

Indeed.

[pregexp/pcre]

> In the end, I'd just like to have a powerful regex lib whose syntax
> and behavior is invariant across all the platforms on which I'm likely
> to run guile.
> 
> Thoughts?

Call me conservative, what not. I'd think You'd Write A Regexp Lib In C (TM).

Apart from that, pregexp shows how a good Scheme interface to a regexp
library might look like. I mean: having an S-expression syntax for
regexps (and having the string variant just as a convenient shorthand
notation) gives you the power to automated construction of regexps.

What I have missed most is a streams like interface: in comes a stream
of chars, out a stream of matches. Has anyone seen something like this?

Have a look to the contortions needed in Perl to do this.

This are my random ramblings. But you asked for input ;-)

Regards
-- tomas


_______________________________________________
Guile-user mailing list
Guile-user@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user