|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> It's not the concept of a regular expression as such. It's the fact that
> all known implementations work by mixing up code and data in the same
> encrypted string.
I don't understand what you mean by that.
> OK, so it's convenient to be able to say "foo*bar" and mean "any string
> that starts with 'foo' and ends with 'bar'".
Actually it doesn't mean that.
> But by the time you've
> added 25 different special characters with a dense set of possible means
> such that you have an almost Turing-complete language, my reaction is
> "for God's sake, stop trying to encode the entire language grammar into
> a text string and go use a /real/ programming language!"
Regular expressions define less than 10 special characters (vertical bar
signifying in practice a boolean 'or', parentheses for grouping, two
quantification symbols and one "wildcard" symbol). Extended regular
expressions add a few more (the '+' quantification symbol and []), but
the total still remains under 10.
Regular expressions are nowhere near Turing strong. They are state
machines.
I don't know what you are confusing regular expressions with, but they
are not that complicated.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |