Re: english names for symbolic SREs

[Alex Shinn <alexshinn@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 12:37 AM, Michael Montague <mikemon@xxxxxxxxx> 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.

"Standardize" is the key word here.  We're not

inventing anything new, but standardizing an

existing syntax used by multiple Scheme

communities.

We've heard your arguments and in consideration

of them have added an experimental feature, which

is English names for the shorter operators.  I don't

like these, I find your example harder to read because

it takes up too much space, distorting the larger

patterns I want to visualize.  But enough people have

expressed interest that I'm allowing them.

Now that you've been given that inch, you want to

take a mile.  You admit to being unfamiliar with

regexps, you flip-flop on the certainty of whether the

English names should be added, yet now you're

saying we should throw away the established syntax

altogether.  You repeatedly dismiss concerns from

actual users of the SRE syntax that they would

need to rewrite their code and their _data_ files.

Procedure names can be rebound by the module

system, but data can't, and SREs could be in use

by people who aren't even programmers.

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.

In that case you didn't understand the reaction.  There

are a lot of very talented people on this list, and people

with much more experience in both PCREs and SREs

than you - you should listen to them.  What part of easier

to compose, easier to use with macros, and easier to edit

did you not understand?

[OK, editing may not be convincing if you don't have an

editor that can work with sexps.  If you haven't before,

try out paredit, it's awesome.]

 

I might as well just use PCREs; at least then anything do I retain can be used outside the world of Scheme.

Sure, you can stick with PCREs if, after understanding

the arguments, you still don't find them convincing.  Or

you can come up with your own syntax - no one's stopping

you.  If enough people start using it you could even write

a SRFI for it.  But this SRFI is for SREs and their users.

-- 

Alex