On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 10:36:54AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
That is a worthy consideration, but expressiveness takes precedence
over it in this case. DFAs are really only good for telling you
*whether* and *where* a pattern matches as a whole. They are
relatively useless for telling you
I have no objection to pattern operators like ::: in principle, but I do
have a potential concern about them.
Given that the operators are actually defined in terms of backtracking
within the RE engine, does this constrain the implementation such that it
MUST be a backtracking implementation
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Deven T. Corzine) writes:
Would it be _possible_ to create a non-backtracking implementation of a
Perl 6 pattern engine
I don't believe that it is, but not just because of : and friends.
Why does it matter?
--
Life sucks, but it's better than the alternative.
-- Peter da
At 10:57 AM -0400 8/28/02, Deven T. Corzine wrote:
Would it be _possible_ to create a non-backtracking implementation of a
Perl 6 pattern engine, or does the existence of backtracking-related
operators preclude this possibility in advance?
In general, no of course it's not possible to create a
On 28 Aug 2002, Simon Cozens wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Deven T. Corzine) writes:
Would it be _possible_ to create a non-backtracking implementation of a
Perl 6 pattern engine
I don't believe that it is, but not just because of : and friends.
Why does it matter?
I'm not saying we
On Wed, 28 Aug 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 10:57 AM -0400 8/28/02, Deven T. Corzine wrote:
Would it be _possible_ to create a non-backtracking implementation of a
Perl 6 pattern engine, or does the existence of backtracking-related
operators preclude this possibility in advance?
In
On Wed, 28 Aug 2002, Deven T. Corzine wrote:
Would it be better for the matching of (Jun|June) to be undefined and
implementation-dependent? Or is it best to require leftmost semantics?
For an alternation spelled out explicitly in the pattern, it seems like
undefined matching would be
On Wed, 28 Aug 2002, Deven T. Corzine wrote:
: I'm not saying we should dump the operators -- if we get more power by
: assuming a backtracking implementation, maybe that's a worthwhile tradeoff.
:
: On the other hand, if we can keep the implementation possibilities more
: open, that's always
On Wed, 28 Aug 2002, Deven T. Corzine wrote:
: I'd like to do that, if I can find the time. It would be interesting to
: make a small experimental prototype to see if DFA construction could really
: improve performance over backtracking, but it would probably need to be a
: very restricted
At 10:36 AM -0700 8/28/02, Larry Wall wrote:
On Wed, 28 Aug 2002, Deven T. Corzine wrote:
: I'm not saying we should dump the operators -- if we get more power by
: assuming a backtracking implementation, maybe that's a worthwhile tradeoff.
:
: On the other hand, if we can keep the implementation
On Wed, 28 Aug 2002, Larry Wall wrote:
: (1) Can we have a :study modifier in Perl 6 for patterns?
:
: It could be a no-op if necessary, but it could take the place of Perl 5's
: study operator and indicate that the programmer WANTS the pattern
: optimized for maximum runtime speed, even
On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 12:55:44PM -0400, Deven T. Corzine wrote:
On Wed, 28 Aug 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 10:57 AM -0400 8/28/02, Deven T. Corzine wrote:
On the other hand, :, ::, ::: and commit don't necessarily need to be a
problem if they can be treated as hints that can be
On Wed, 28 Aug 2002, Larry Wall wrote:
That is a worthy consideration, but expressiveness takes precedence
over it in this case.
I see nothing wrong with expressiveness taking precedence -- I'm only
saying that it would be best to be cognizant of any restrictions we're
hardcoding into the
On Wed, 28 Aug 2002, Steve Fink wrote:
On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 12:55:44PM -0400, Deven T. Corzine wrote:
On Wed, 28 Aug 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 10:57 AM -0400 8/28/02, Deven T. Corzine wrote:
On the other hand, :, ::, ::: and commit don't necessarily need to be a
problem if
14 matches
Mail list logo
