In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Perl6 RFC Librarian writes:
:It would be preferable to keep the regular expression engine as
:self-contained as possible, if nothing else to enable it to be used
:either outside Perl or inside standalone translated Perl programs
:without a Perl runtime.
:
:To do this, we'll have to remove the bits of the engine that call
:Perl code. In short: C<?{ code }> and C<??{ code }> must die.
I would have thought it more reasonable, if you wish to create
standalone translated Perl programs without a Perl runtime, to fail
with a helpful error if you encounter a construct that won't permit
it. You'll need to remove chunks of eval() and do() as well,
otherwise, and probably more besides.
In the context of a more shareable regexp engine, I would like to
see (? and (?? stay, but they need to be implemented more cleanly.
You could handle them quite nicely, I think, with just three
well-defined external hooks: one to find the matching brace at the
end of the code, one to parse the code, and one to run the code.
Anyone wishing to re-use the regexp library could then choose either
to keep the default drop-in replacements for those hooks (that die)
or provide their own equivalents to the perl usage.
I consider recursive regexps very useful:
$a = qr{ (?> [^()]+ ) | \( (??{ $a }) \) };
.. and I class re-eval in general in the arena of 'making hard
things possible'. But whether or not they stay, it would probably
also be useful to have a more direct way of expressing simple
recursive regexps such as the above without resorting to a costly
eval. When I've tried to come up with an appropriate restriction,
however, I find it very difficult to pick a dividing line.
Hugo
