4 ms·
Why? Sane regexes aren't all that inefficient, and here efficiency doesn't matter much anyhow.
by gamache 17y ago
Why? Sane regexes aren't all that inefficient, and here efficiency doesn't matter much anyhow.
- dasil003 17y agoIt's not about efficiency, it's about robust parsing.
- boucher 17y agoActually, I think it's about ease of implementation.
- stcredzero 17y agoCorrectness > Ease of implementation
- gamache 17y agoThat statement is content-free. Robust parsing can be achieved using regexes as a tool. I want some reasoning better than "ew, regexes!"
- stcredzero 17y agoIf the "regexes" can call each other recursively, then this is possible. If not, then it is theoretically impossible. The proof is often given as a problem in your basic automata class. "Regexes" are no longer the same as "Regular Expressions" in automata theory. But their origin is in automata theory. A lot of the "ew, regexes" reaction comes from this. I'm skeptical that augmented "regexes" are any more maintainable than compiler compilers.
- gamache 17y agoYes, I am talking about using regexes where a "standard" parser would use getc() and switch statements all over the place. You can't just write a clever regex and wrap it in a while loop and have a parser to go; as you mention, this is theoretically impossible.