[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: benefits of SRE syntax

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 115 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 115 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

On 10/20/2013 07:21 AM, Alex Shinn wrote:
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 4:14 AM, Per Bothner <per@xxxxxxxxxxx
    I think structured regular expressions make sense when integrated
    with a general pattern-matching framework (by which I mean something
    like http://docs.racket-lang.org/__reference/match.html
    <http://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/match.html>). Also,
    sub-matches should produce variable bindings.

I think it would be strange to provide regexp
matching as part of a general matching framework
without providing access to the underlying regexp

You're assuming there is an underlying regexp library
for handling strings regexps.  But that assumes a
separate syntax and operators for strings regexp matching.
However, a more integrated approach is possible and IMO
preferable, where regexps are matched against general
sequences, not just strings.

I suggest taking a look at CDuce (or its precursor XDuce)

I think this is a much more elegant approach, and much more
in the "spirit of Scheme" (if you take away the static typing
aspect - which of course I like).

If "structured regular expressions" are to be part of the
language, we should think about how they apply to sequences
(lists and vectors) in general, not just strings.
	--Per Bothner
per@xxxxxxxxxxx   http://per.bothner.com/