|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |