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)
|
Michael Montague scripsit: > 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. It provides the ability to compile repeatedly used parts of regular expressions. In a context where a large number of regular expressions are in use that have factors in common, this can save a good deal of time and possibly space. -- Long-short-short, long-short-short / Dactyls in dimeter, John Cowan Verse form with choriambs / (Masculine rhyme): xxxxxx@ccil.org One sentence (two stanzas) / Hexasyllabically Challenges poets who / Don't have the time. --robison who's at texas dot net