4 ms·

> (?:[a-z0-9!#$%&'+/=?^_`{|}~-]+(?:\.[a-z0-9!#$%&'+/=?^_`{|}~-]+)|"(?:[\x01-\x08\x0b\x0c\x0e-\x1f\x21\x23-\x5b\x5d-\x7f]|\\[\x01-\x09\x0b\x0c\x0e-\x7f])")@(?:(?

> (?:[a-z0-9!#$%&'+/=?^_`{|}~-]+(?:\.[a-z0-9!#$%&'+/=?^_`{|}~-]+)|"(?:[\x01-\x08\x0b\x0c\x0e-\x1f\x21\x23-\x5b\x5d-\x7f]|\\[\x01-\x09\x0b\x0c\x0e-\x7f])")@(?:(?:[a-z0-9](?:[a-z0-9-][a-z0-9])?\.)+[a-z0-9](?:[a-z0-9-][a-z0-9])?|\[(?:(?:25[0-5]|2[0-4][0-9]|[01]?[0-9][0-9]?)\.){3}(?:25[0-5]|2[0-4][0-9]|[01]?[0-9][0-9]?|[a-z0-9-]*[a-z0-9]:(?:[\x01-\x08\x0b\x0c\x0e-\x1f\x21-\x5a\x53-\x7f]|\\[\x01-\x09\x0b\x0c\x0e-\x7f])+)\]) Such elegance. Might as well write code in machine code while we're at it.

Tainnor 6y ago
That's like complaining that you can write ugly code in any language. The problem isn't the regular expression, it's that email addresses, while they technically may form a regular language (not sure if they 100% do), are an insanely complicated such language and not a very nice one. How would you write a specification for that language in any other way that was more elegant? Sure, you could make it more verbose, but that wouldn't make it easier to understand the whole of it, or why it is the way it is.
- admax88q 6y ago
  Almost every RFC writes their grammars in some form of BNF not in regular expressions. RFC are written to be understandable. > Sure, you could make it more verbose, but that wouldn't make it easier to understand the whole of it, or why it is the way it is. Absolutely it would. The way to understand a large thing, is to understand the smaller components and then put them together. Regular Expressions to do not compose well.
  - Tainnor 6y ago
    > Regular Expressions to do not compose well. That is patently untrue. Regular expressions compose under a number of important mathematical operations, such as union, intersection and concatenation. If your PL supports string interpolation, it's trivial to compose them in these ways (well ok, maybe not intersection). Nobody says that your regex needs to be written as a single string.
- ajuc 6y ago
  Elegant regexes are almost unheard of in real world no matter if it's e-mail or anything else.
notreallytrue 6y ago
Principia Mathematica wants a word in private P.s. do you realise how much harder it would be to understand the same thing in machine language?

Tainnor 6y ago

That's like complaining that you can write ugly code in any language. The problem isn't the regular expression, it's that email addresses, while they technically may form a regular language (not sure if they 100% do), are an insanely complicated such language and not a very nice one. How would you write a specification for that language in any other way that was more elegant? Sure, you could make it more verbose, but that wouldn't make it easier to understand the whole of it, or why it is the way it is.

admax88q 6y ago
Almost every RFC writes their grammars in some form of BNF not in regular expressions. RFC are written to be understandable. > Sure, you could make it more verbose, but that wouldn't make it easier to understand the whole of it, or why it is the way it is. Absolutely it would. The way to understand a large thing, is to understand the smaller components and then put them together. Regular Expressions to do not compose well.
- Tainnor 6y ago
  > Regular Expressions to do not compose well. That is patently untrue. Regular expressions compose under a number of important mathematical operations, such as union, intersection and concatenation. If your PL supports string interpolation, it's trivial to compose them in these ways (well ok, maybe not intersection). Nobody says that your regex needs to be written as a single string.
ajuc 6y ago
Elegant regexes are almost unheard of in real world no matter if it's e-mail or anything else.

notreallytrue 6y ago

Principia Mathematica wants a word in private P.s. do you realise how much harder it would be to understand the same thing in machine language?