On 11/30/2013 3:26 PM, Alex Shinn wrote:
There already exists an extremely widely used regular _expression_ syntax designed for brevity. We do not need to standardize another one designed for brevity. We need to standardize a regular _expression_ syntax that is readable, understandable, and maintainable by people other than regular _expression_ experts. We need one that fits with Scheme and is friendly to Scheme programmers.
SREs uses three short names in common with PCREs: '*', '+', and '?'. One short name, '$', has its meaning changed from PCREs. The rest are unique to SREs: '=', '>=', '**', ':', '=>', '??', '*?', '**?', '/', '-', and '~'. The only reason that I can think of that these would be friendly to people used to PCREs is that they are already trained to believe that regular _expression_ syntax has to be cryptic.
I think two names is a bad idea, but I want to get rid of the short ones. The regular _expression_ syntax that I think we should be standardizing does not have brevity as a goal.
When I asked early on, "what are the benefits of the SRE syntax" I got a strong reaction. To me, the advantages of list structure does not outweigh the disadvantages of having to learn yet more cryptic operator names. When I want to write a regular _expression_, I could pull out the documentation for SREs, and figure out how to do it. But when I come back a month later to change it or fix a bug, I would have to pull out the documentation again. Why bother. I might as well just use PCREs; at least then anything do I retain can be used outside the world of Scheme.
and I stand by t. Why bother standardizing another
If we are going to try to standardize another regular _expression_ syntax designed for