|
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)
|
On 11/26/2013 6:17 AM, Peter Bex wrote: > On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 09:44:27PM +0900, Alex Shinn wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Michael Montague <xxxxxx@gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> Why can the procedure 'regexp' be called with an already compiled <re> >>> which is just returned? > Convenience, I'd say. That way you can create modules which have an > interface that accepts either SREs or regexp objects (like irregex does), > having it automatically compile SREs. I propose dropping the requirement that 'regexp' can be called with an already compiled <re>. It provides no additional functionality and it makes the specification of 'regexp' less clear.
