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)
|
Kevin Wortman scripsit: > "Note that an SRE is a first-class object consisting of nested lists > of strings, chars, char-sets, symbols and numbers. Where the syntax is > described as (foo bar), this can be constructed equivalently as '(foo > bar) or (list 'foo 'bar), etc." Right. So it's not a *disjoint* data type, as compiled re's and regex-match objects are. But that doesn't mean it doesn't deserve a predicate, even if you have to be sure to check that predicate before any of the built-in ones. -- Do what you will, John Cowan this Life's a Fiction xxxxxx@ccil.org And is made up of http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Contradiction. --William Blake