On 2017-10-29 00:48, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 12:31:01AM +0100, MRAB wrote: > >> Not that I'm planning on making any further additions, just bug fixes >> and updates to follow the Unicode updates. I think I've crammed enough >> into it already. There's only so much you can do with the regex syntax >> with its handful of metacharacters and possible escape sequences... > > What do you think of the Perl 6 regex syntax? > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perl_6_rules#Changes_from_Perl_5 > I think I prefer something that's more like PEG, with quoted literals, perhaps because it looks more like a programming language, but also because it's clearer than saying "these characters are literal, but those aren't". That webpage says "Literals: word characters (letters, numbers and underscore) matched literally", but is that all letters? And what about diacritics, and combining characters? I'm not keen on <before ...> and <!before ...>, I like & and ! better, but then how would you write a lookbehind? Named rules are good, better than regex's use of named capture groups, and if you quote literal, then you wouldn't need to wrap rule call in <...>, as Perl 6 does.
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