Steve Simmons:
# On Sun, Jan 13, 2002 at 12:55:26AM -0800, Brent Dax wrote:
# >
# > It's meant to be a simple fallback for languages that are
# too pathetic
# > to implement their own regex compiler. ("FooLang should
# have regular
# > expressions, but I'm too lazy! I'll just use rx_compile!")
# Currently
# > I'm thinking of it as having a minimal feature set,
# less-than-phenomenal
# > performance, and little optimization.
#
# Frankly, I'd throw the best, most reliable freeware you can gets your
# hands on into it. Occasionally I do regexp talks at work; the #1 pain
# in the ass is that so many damned tools do it differently. Putting a
# good one here will go a long way towards pulling everyone up to speed
# consistantly.
#
# At least until the next extension is released, anyway.
#
# BTW, didn't Henry Spencer do a major re-release of his
# package a couple
# of years back?
#
# Also, the Perl-Compatible-Regular-Expression library
# <http://www.pcre.org/>
# claims to be in use by a number of significant projects including
# Python, Postfix, KDE, Analog, and PHP.
#
# Advance apologies if I've re-walked old ground; I skim this list at
best.
You kind of are. :^) Quick overview of why:
-Perl has always implemented its own RE engine for efficiency and
self-sufficiency.
-Larry doesn't want to have a black box in Parrot like he has in Perl
5.
-Most freeware licenses are incompatible with Parrot's...unique
licensing practices.
-Perl has to compile and run on some 80 platforms. Few freeware
packages can do that.
-Perl constantly adds new features to regular expressions.
There are probably a few other reasons I've overlooked, too.
--Brent Dax
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Parrot Configure pumpking and regex hacker
<obra> mmmm. hawt sysadmin chx0rs
<lathos> This is sad. I know of *a* hawt sysamin chx0r.
<obra> I know more than a few.
<lathos> obra: There are two? Are you sure it's not the same one?
