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.
Alex Shinn scripsit:
> 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.
There's a big difference between "prohibitively expensive" and "should
avoid their use" on the one hand, and "very expensive" and "should
avoid their use except when necessary" on the other. I suggest the
latter language is more appropriate for a feature that is, after all,
being included, not excluded.
> > 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.
I propose `optional`, `zero-or-more`, `one-or-more`, `at-least`,
`exactly`, and `repeated`. Verbose, but easy to understand.
--
John Cowan cowan@xxxxxxxx http://ccil.org/~cowan
If I have seen farther than others, it is because I am surrounded by dwarves.
--Murray Gell-Mann