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>))?On 11/26/2013 2:22 PM, Alex Shinn wrote:
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 7:06 AM, Michael Montague <mikemon@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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> ...)).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 inthis SRFI will work with the regexps compiled by `pcre'.That is, there is only one compiled regexp type.
Yes, it is. And my earlier mail described a `pcre' syntax.Nowhere was `pcre-regexp' proposed.