On 11 February 2013 13:05, Oleg Kalnichevski <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-02-11 at 12:24 +0000, sebb wrote:
>> The IPv6 regexes use non-capturing groups - i.e. (?:pattern) - whereas
>> the IPV4 pattern uses capturing groups - i.e. (pattern).
>>
>> Just wondering why they don't all use non-capturing groups, given that
>> the patterns are only used in boolean matches() methods?
>>
>
> No reason. Just me being sloppy.
>
>> If it more efficient to use non-capturing groups, perhaps they should
>> be use throughout?
>>
>> If efficiency is not a concern, then the IPv6 patterns would be easier
>> to read if they used non-capturing groups, as that would mean the
>> colon would only appear as itself rather than sometimes as itself and
>> sometimes as part of (?:pattern). In some cases the pattern begins
>> with : which looks odd.
>>
>
> I think we should strive for simplicity over efficiency here. These
> regular expressions are already too complex for mere mortals. Anything
> that would make them more readable would be a good thing.
In which case, would you be OK if I extracted the common sections out?
For example, [0-9A-Fa-f]{1,4} appears several times; it could be
defined as IPV6_HEX_FIELD and then used to build up the other strings.
AFAIK, javac concatenates strings at compile time if they are
constants, so it would be no less efficient.
> Oleg
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
