regexp to matchspec
Ulf Wiger (AL/EAB)
Mon Jan 23 15:24:06 CET 2006
Yeah, well, I didn't want to open _that_
can of worms. (:
Just being able to use the relatively limited
expressiveness of regexp.erl is a huge step
forward compared to match specs, I think
(when matching on strings, of course).
Also, Robert Virding's regexp library has
a pretty nice internal form that's quite easy
to grasp, and that's what I've based the conversion
Btw, I corrected the bug in my program to properly
bail out when it gets too complex:
1> f(Re), catch (Re =
2> f(Re), catch (Re =
I set the default limit to 100,000 tail ops past
the last variable (in total, all branches counted).
One can increase it carefully (requires a recompile)
and measure the memory consumption and conversion
time to suit individual tastes.
I also made pclosure() and kclosure both insert
'false' if they hit the lookahead limit. I don't
know if 'true' would be more appropriate (or if it
matters at all), but it seems sensible that they
both act the same way...
No new code distributed, unless requested.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-erlang-questions@REDACTED
> [mailto:owner-erlang-questions@REDACTED] On Behalf Of Vlad
> Dumitrescu XX (LN/EAB)
> Sent: den 23 januari 2006 14:59
> To: Erlang Questions
> Subject: RE: regexp to matchspec
> I don't have any comments on your idea or your code, Ulf, but
> it might be of interest to check the way Perl 6 is revisiting
> regexps http://dev.perl.org/perl6/doc/design/apo/A05.html.
> Not entirely relevant to Erlang regexps and way too detailed
> for a non-Perl programmer, but might stir up an idea or two
> :-) The one thing that stuck for me is that they try to make
> regexp language more like a grammar, which I think is a Good Thing.
More information about the erlang-questions