From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: tomas@fabula.de Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.user Subject: Re: Stupid module and pregexp questions Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 11:50:52 +0200 Sender: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <20030506095052.GB23667@www> References: <877k9eobcv.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> <20030430064840.GC22895@www> <20030430103445.GB23809@www> <200304301711.KAA07475@morrowfield.regexps.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1052211409 14512 80.91.224.249 (6 May 2003 08:56:49 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 08:56:49 +0000 (UTC) Cc: ttn@glug.org Original-X-From: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue May 06 10:56:45 2003 Return-path: Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 19CyFh-0003li-00 for ; Tue, 06 May 2003 10:56:45 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10.13) id 19CyFk-00044n-07 for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Tue, 06 May 2003 04:56:48 -0400 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.10.13) id 19CyFN-0003aV-00 for guile-user@gnu.org; Tue, 06 May 2003 04:56:25 -0400 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10.13) id 19CyEu-0002Bf-00 for guile-user@gnu.org; Tue, 06 May 2003 04:56:01 -0400 Original-Received: from [217.22.192.104] (helo=www.elogos.de) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10.13) id 19CyCS-0000TM-00 for guile-user@gnu.org; Tue, 06 May 2003 04:53:24 -0400 Original-Received: by www.elogos.de (Postfix, from userid 5002) id AA86414580; Tue, 6 May 2003 11:50:52 +0200 (CEST) Original-To: Tom Lord Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200304301711.KAA07475@morrowfield.regexps.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.3i Original-cc: guile-user@gnu.org X-BeenThere: guile-user@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1b5 Precedence: list List-Id: General Guile related discussions List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: , Errors-To: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.user:1912 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.user:1912 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