* demerphq <[email protected]> [2006-12-17 19:55]: > >> On 12/17/06, A. Pagaltzis <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >Regular expressions are a language in their own right; they > >> >should at least have their own kind of literal. Even Perl > >> >5 is not consistent enough in this regard. > > Im probably being thick, but i dont see the connection between > the two. > > A) You said that Perl doesnt consistantly treat regexps as > a special kind of literal. > > B) Larry says that regexes should be able to call perl code as > easily as perl code can call regexps. > > I dont see the connection between the two,
Sorry, the point got butchered while editing. I was saying that even Perl 5 does not treat regular expressions enough as a language in their own right; not that there isn't a consistent enough regex literal in Perl. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
