From: Jeff Wood <jeff.darklight@...>
Date: 2005-11-28T14:25:48+09:00
Subject: Re: String#to_rx ?

------=_Part_26438_23641922.1133155540983
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

No further response. There isn't a point. I've stated my opinion, you've
stated yours. We aren't the only people in the world, and this is generatin=
g
far too much noise.

Let it be.  You've brought it up, and I'm sure other people will chip in
with their $0.02USD

j.

On 11/27/05, Nikolai Weibull <mailing-lists.ruby-talk@rawuncut.elitemail.or=
g>
wrote:
>
> Jeff Wood wrote:
>
> > I do agree that I should have reviewed the document before posting a
> > response.  I have done that, and still hold to what I've stated.
> >
> > The Perl syntax he proposed is a hideous mess of line noise ( no
> > surprises).
>
> So you think /(?:abc)/ is easier to read than /[abc]/?  How about
> /\w+\s*=3D\s*\w+/ versus /<word> =3D <word>/w (or /<word><ws>=3D<ws><word=
>/
> without 'w' modifier and assuming word =3D /\w+/)?
>
> > I don't believe that the suggested functionality can be added without
> > slowing regular expression matching.
>
> What functionality are you talking about?  The obvious one that slows
> down matching is the one that executes arbitrary Perl (Ruby) statments,
> but you're certainly not forced to use that functionality if you don't
> want to, which brings us to...
>
> > But there IS one idea in the document I like and would require NO
> > changes to regexp syntax.
> >
> > # define a normal regex with 1 group
> > a =3D /(\d+)/
> >
> > # add a rule for group 1s matching
> > a.rules << Rexexp::Rule.new( :group, 1 ) { |val| val > 20 }
> >
> > # now play.
> > b =3D "200 19 14 21 1"
> > b.scan a
> > #=3D>[ "200","21" ]
> >
> > ... at least that's how I'd do it ...  Beyond that, I still feel
> > trying to get anything more than "ideas" for features from Perl is NOT
> > a good path for ruby.
>
> How is that easier to understand than
>
> b =3D "200 19 14 21 1"
> b.scan /(\d+){ |val| val > 2 }/
> # =3D> ["200", "21"]
>
> ?  With this syntax, it's pretty obvious what's going on, at least I
> think so.  "Match a sequence of one or more digits and call the given
> block to see if we should actually accept it as a valid match."
>
> Furthermore, everything could be added _without_ changing the regex
> syntax, but that's not the point.  The point is to make the regex syntax
> as expressive as possible, just like Ruby's syntax is as expressive as
> possible (or at least tries to be).
>
> > Anyways, I do see value in what you brought to the table ... but maybe
> > next time explain the feature for it's merits not "hey look what perl
> > is doing!" ...
>
> I didn't even mention Perl in my original posting.  I mentioned an
> article about a new regular expression syntax, which happened to be for
> Perl 6, but I didn't say "Hey, look what almighty Larry Wall has said we
> must do."
>
>         nikolai
>
> --
> Nikolai Weibull: now available free of charge at http://bitwi.se/!
> Born in Chicago, IL USA; currently residing in Gothenburg, Sweden.
> main(){printf(&linux["\021%six\012\0"],(linux)["have"]+"fun"-97);}
>
>


--
"Remember. Understand. Believe. Yield! -> http://ruby-lang.org"

Jeff Wood

------=_Part_26438_23641922.1133155540983--