Greg Ward wrote: > >... > > I think I'd have to agree with /F on this one... somewhere around Perl > 5.003 or 5.004, regexes in Perl went from being a powerful and really > cool facility to being a massively overgrown language-within-a-language. > I *tried* to use some of the fancy new features a few times out of > curiosity, but could never get them to work. (At the time, I think I > was a pretty sharp Perl programmer, although I've dulled since then.) I would rather see us try a new approach to regular expressions. I've seen a few proposals for more verbose-but-readable syntaxes. I think one was from Greg Ewing? And maybe one from Ping? For those of us who use regular expressions only once in a while (i.e. the lucky ones), the current syntax is a holy terror. Which characters are magical again? In what contexts? With how many levels of backslashing? Upper case W versus lower case W? Obviously we can never abandon the tried and true Perl5 RE module, but I think we could have another syntax on top. -- Take a recipe. Leave a recipe. Python Cookbook! http://www.ActiveState.com/pythoncookbook
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4