>> Semantic correctness is impossible to guarantee.
>
> Yes, and that's my point. Even with your syntactic correctness, you got
> the parser for the numbers wrong.

So because you can't find /all/ bugs automatically, it's pointless to 
try to find /any/ bugs automatically?

All I can say to that is: I do not agree.

>> It's a bit like trying to build an
>> XML file by string manipulation. Yes, it can be done. Yes, you can
>> make it work. And yes, it's incredibly fragile.
>
> No it's not.

I give up.

> If you're using a library to construct regular expressions, of course
> the library is going to be invoked in a way that makes it impossible to
> construct syntactically invalid regular expressions, just like your
> parser is.
>
> You're comparing Haskell against brain-dead worst-possible-stupidity
> regular expression libraries, and saying "See? My way is better!"

I have yet to see anybody construct a regex in any way other than typing 
it out by hand, or gluing strings together by hand.

Post a reply to this message