Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> If a state machine is a good way to solve your problem, why not express 
> it clearly? And why limit it to only operating on characters?

It is clearly expressed, and it's not limited to only operating on 
characters.  What can I say?

> ...so, basically Unix text-mangling tools then?

No. Most anything working with text.

>> Pretty much every programming language since COBOL
> 
> Really. Because your list seems to include only low-level scripting 
> languages. I don't see regexs in Pascal, C, Eiffel, etc.

Libraries, dear. Few languages have them built into the syntax.

>> Let me list a few of the programs that support the parser you prefer:
>>
>> Haskell
> 
> I'm pretty sure that Haskell is not the only programming language that 
> offers real parser construction tools. Parsec is merely an example of 
> such. 

Sure. And the other languages have real parser tools too.  Bison, for 
example, if nothing else.

>> So, yeah, the fact that your education sucks doesn't mean bupkiss about
>> what actually goes on in the real world. :-)
> 
> Right. Because Unix text-mangling is all that happens in "the real 
> world", naturally...

No, because it's used much more widely, yet you've never seen it.  Every 
state machine is a regular expression matcher. Those pictures of state 
transitions in TCP? Regular expressions.  The "railroad track" diagrams in 
the Pascal standard? Regular expressions.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message