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

Re: updated draft



On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 8:23 AM, John Cowan <cowan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Alex Shinn scripsit:

> If you gave feedback you were expecting to be addressed, please double
> check that it was.

My editorial corrections in
<http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-115/mail-archive/msg00051.html> were not
integrated, although the last two substantive points were addressed.

Indeed, sorry, I've just made these changes locally
so they'll be sure to be in the next draft.

Ditto for <http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-115/mail-archive/msg00057.html>,
whose only point is that saying "prohibitively expensive" in a spec
that provides the expensive feature in a spec is a bad idea; the first
word should be dropped.  Similarly, the statement under "backref" that
"their use should be avoided" is inappropriate.  When you need them,
you have to be prepared to pay the cost.

I answered this indirectly by expanding the history and
making clear that the entire reason for using regular
expressions is that they are efficient.  I have no intention
of removing these warnings because this is a genuine
security concern that programmers should be aware of.

In <http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-115/mail-archive/msg00020.html>,
Michael Montague requested textual alternate names for the patterns ?,
*, +, etc.  You agreed, but haven't done it.

I said I see no reason not to do it.  If someone comes
up with a reasonable list of names I can include them.

You said in
<http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-115/mail-archive/msg00054.html> that you
would include regexp->sre with a warning that the result might not be
`equal?` to the original, but you haven't done it yet.

Thanks, I missed that.

On the issues section:

I'll address these separately when I'm sure they're not
going to be brought up as part of the discussion again.

-- 
Alex