From: Ari Brown <ari@...>
Date: 2007-08-08T02:44:27+09:00
Subject: Re: Alternate Regular Expressions?

Thanks! I was actually thinking about this myself.

Please people, send an email if you want to see something in a Ruby  
RegExp wrapper. Don't be shy. If i can get drafted into making this,  
then you can tell me what you want to see.

Thanks,
Ari


On Aug 7, 2007, at 12:55 PM, Kenneth McDonald wrote:

> Speaking as someone who has actually written and used (in Python) a  
> more abstract regex library,
> the biggest problem with regular expressions in most languages  
> isn't the syntax, but rather
> the inability to easily compose small REs into larger REs. Which is  
> why so many programs end
> up with huge, unreadable REs. As a small example, it's really nice  
> (and obvious) to be able to say
>
>    re3 = re1 + re2
>
> instead of
>
>    re3 = "(?:#{re1})(?:#{re2})"
>
> And the advantages go well beyond the convenience illustrated in  
> the above example...
>
> Also, I think that people who are accustomed to regular expressions  
> (or any other DSL) tend
> to forget about the problems with that DSL; the need for newcomers  
> to learn another syntax,
> the inability to use standard language tools with the DSL, and so on.
>
> So, though I've used REs for years, I certainly don't agree with  
> the contention that "REs
> are actually pretty good". RE syntax in RE languages is optimized  
> for quickly entering onetime
> REs on the command line, not for building robust REs that can be  
> easily maintained by
> other programmers. It's the difference between weird, Perl-style  
> variables, and meaningful
> variable names. A good abstract wrapper in Ruby would be very useful.
>
> Ken
>
> Yossef Mendelssohn wrote:

--------------------------------------------|
If you're not living on the edge,
then you're just wasting space.