Re: Stupid module and pregexp questions

[tomas@fabula.de]

On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 10:11:53AM -0700, Tom Lord wrote:
> 

[about `standard' regexp implementation]

> I realize it's a bit cliche but: the nice thing about regexp standards
> is that there are so many to choose from.   Just to throw out some 
> observations:

[BTW. Thanks, Tom. You answer a question I posed to you off list]

[Posix vs Perl vs Unicode cons vs Emacs regexps]

[...]

> Maybe that suggestion, to choose a minimalist, truly regular regular
> expression language -- then do the rest in scheme -- satisfies the
> spirit of "do as little as possible in C".

Hm. Technically, the idea sounds quite attractive, in a way. I
see several issues, though.

 - This leaves still the question open whether it'd be possible to
   have a regexp interface spec which could be fairly portable
   across Schemes. It might leave many things unspecified, but it
   would have to be powerful/specific enough that people dare to
   use it (when trying to write portable Scheme, that is).
   
 - If there is a possibility to provide a ``high level'' interface
   resembling more traditional regexp languages, I see no problem.
   It's this ``high level'' interface I was talking about (after all
   it seems pregexp does *everything* in Scheme).

> Another design dimension to consider: what are Guile's plans re:
> Unicode?

Uh, oh.

Regards
-- tomas


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