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

Re: integrating PCREs

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 11/26/2013 2:22 PM, Alex Shinn wrote:
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 7:06 AM, Michael Montague <mikemon@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 11/26/2013 1:51 PM, Alex Shinn wrote:
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 2:53 AM, Michael Montague <mikemon@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I propose changing 'regexp' to 'sre-regexp' for future consistency with 'pcre-regexp'.

There will be no `pcre-regexp'.  All of the functions in
this SRFI will work with the regexps compiled by `pcre'.
That is, there is only one compiled regexp type.

I am confused. I thought 'regexp' was a procedure which took a <sre> and compiled it into an <re>. And I though 'rx' was syntax which expanded into (regexp '(: <sre> ...)).

Yes, it is.  And my earlier mail described a `pcre' syntax.
Nowhere was `pcre-regexp' proposed.

I assumed that 'pcre-regexp' would be the PCRE version of 'regexp': (pcre-regexp <pcre>). Or did you have in mind that to compile a PCRE you would use: (regexp (pcre->sre <pcre>))?