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 11/30/2013 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