Wed Jun 3 11:24:44 CEST 2009
2009/6/3 mats cronqvist <>
> "Richard O'Keefe" <> writes:
> > That pain level is there for a good reason: if the Erlang string
> > syntax is giving you that much of a headache, it's because STRINGS ARE
> > WRONG and you should almost certainly be using trees instead.
> Alas, re wants strings, and there's not much I can do about that.
Not quite true. The *underlying implementation* wants the regexp as a string
but this does not mean that the user has to supply it as a string. You could
very well allow the regexp as an AST (as well as?) and then internally
convert it to a string.
More information about the erlang-questions