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.