benefits of SRE syntax Michael Montague (16 Oct 2013 18:44 UTC)
Re: benefits of SRE syntax Roderic Morris (16 Oct 2013 19:23 UTC)
Re: benefits of SRE syntax Alex Shinn (20 Oct 2013 07:13 UTC)
Re: benefits of SRE syntax Per Bothner (16 Oct 2013 19:34 UTC)
Re: benefits of SRE syntax Alex Shinn (20 Oct 2013 14:21 UTC)
Re: benefits of SRE syntax John Cowan (20 Oct 2013 16:30 UTC)
Re: benefits of SRE syntax Per Bothner (20 Oct 2013 17:16 UTC)
Re: benefits of SRE syntax John Cowan (20 Oct 2013 17:50 UTC)
Re: benefits of SRE syntax Alex Shinn (20 Oct 2013 21:17 UTC)
Re: benefits of SRE syntax John David Stone (16 Oct 2013 20:39 UTC)
Re: benefits of SRE syntax Peter Bex (16 Oct 2013 20:50 UTC)
Re: benefits of SRE syntax Alex Shinn (17 Oct 2013 08:41 UTC)

benefits of SRE syntax Michael Montague 16 Oct 2013 18:44 UTC

Maybe I am being a heretic, but what are the benefits of the SRE syntax?

The beginning of the rational notes that "regular expressions are the
lingua franca of string matching today". Part of that lingua franca is
the traditional syntax of regular expressions.

The rational also lists three benefits of the SRE syntax:
(1) They are easier to read.
(2) They are easier to extend.
(3) They are both faster and simpler to compile.

On benefit (1): they are more verbose, and readability is subjective.
They will look different to anyone who has already learned the
traditional syntax of regular expressions.

On benefit (3): some (most?) implementations will compile the SREs to
the traditional syntax and use a library like PCRE.

I don't have a sense for the value of benefit (2), maybe it is enough to
make the SRE syntax worth it. Benefits (1) and (3) don't seem like
strong enough arguments to merit requiring the SRE syntax.

Michael.