regexp and valid-sre? Michael Montague (26 Nov 2013 03:34 UTC)
Re: regexp and valid-sre? Alex Shinn (26 Nov 2013 12:44 UTC)
Re: regexp and valid-sre? Peter Bex (26 Nov 2013 14:25 UTC)
Re: regexp and valid-sre? Michael Montague (26 Nov 2013 18:00 UTC)
Re: regexp and valid-sre? Peter Bex (26 Nov 2013 18:21 UTC)
Re: regexp and valid-sre? Michael Montague (26 Nov 2013 19:09 UTC)
Re: regexp and valid-sre? John Cowan (26 Nov 2013 18:24 UTC)
Re: regexp and valid-sre? Michael Montague (26 Nov 2013 19:17 UTC)
Re: regexp and valid-sre? Peter Bex (26 Nov 2013 19:23 UTC)
Re: regexp and valid-sre? Kevin Wortman (26 Nov 2013 19:52 UTC)
Re: regexp and valid-sre? Michael Montague (26 Nov 2013 19:59 UTC)
Re: regexp and valid-sre? Kevin Wortman (27 Nov 2013 23:33 UTC)
Re: regexp and valid-sre? John Cowan (27 Nov 2013 23:42 UTC)
Re: regexp and valid-sre? Arthur A. Gleckler (30 Nov 2013 14:55 UTC)
Re: regexp and valid-sre? Michael Montague (26 Nov 2013 18:02 UTC)
Re: regexp and valid-sre? John Cowan (26 Nov 2013 18:19 UTC)
Re: regexp and valid-sre? Michael Montague (26 Nov 2013 19:11 UTC)

Re: regexp and valid-sre? John Cowan 26 Nov 2013 18:24 UTC

Michael Montague scripsit:

> I don't think that these are strong arguments for having
> 'valid-sre?'. An implementation for which compiling is expensive,
> could easily internally do the "is it valid"-type check before
> compiling. Having it in the interface adds no functionality that is
> not already easily available.

It tells the compiler only to syntax-check and not go on to actually
compile.  This is a very common feature in compilers: for example,
in gcc the -fsyntax-only option activates this mode.  Sometimes
all you want to know at present is whether something is syntactically valid.

--
"Repeat this until 'update-mounts -v' shows no updates.         John Cowan
You may well have to log in to particular machines, hunt down   xxxxxx@ccil.org
people who still have processes running, and kill them."