[erlang-questions] regexp sux!
Mon May 21 17:55:12 CEST 2007
Luke Gorrie <luke.gorrie@REDACTED> wrote:
> Darius Bacon <darius@REDACTED> writes:
> > Here's a lightly-tested hack -- I'm not familiar with the existing
> > libraries so this is from scratch.
> You bloody showoff. :-) Works great!
> I had to add . (dot) but nothing else really obvious is missing.
> Feel free to draw my attention to anything I'm overlooking though :-)
There's no attempt to conform to any standard, and the regex parser
ought to be replaced with a real one that understands char ranges,
inverted char classes, escaping, etc.
> Can I steal this code and use it at work?
Sure, I guess an MIT license would be appropriate. I'd appreciate
getting back any improvements/tests -- don't know when I'll get around
to the quickcheck tests.
> NB: I would still feel more comfortable if this were quickcheck'd a
> bit for divergence etc. I can't help but think that a free quickcheck
> clone is likely to surface soon. I hope that John & Thomas are happy
> with this idea or if not that they make their one accessible to us
> random hackers on the list somehow soon :-)
Their automatic error-case shrinking sounds really cool and useful.
More information about the erlang-questions