Newest at the top
| 2025-02-26 01:36:26 +0100 | misterfish | (~misterfis@84.53.85.146) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) |
| 2025-02-26 01:36:02 +0100 | <mauke> | "With the exception of backreferences, the features provided by the slow backtracking implementations can be provided by the automata-based implementations at dramatically faster, more consistent speeds." is of course wrong |
| 2025-02-26 01:34:49 +0100 | ski | . o O ( "Regular Expression Matching Can Be Simple And Fast (but is slow in Java, Perl, PHP, Python, Ruby, ...)" by Russ Cox in 2007-01 at <https://swtch.com/~rsc/regexp/regexp1.html> ) |
| 2025-02-26 01:33:52 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) |
| 2025-02-26 01:33:36 +0100 | krei-se | (~krei-se@p3ee0fb6e.dip0.t-ipconnect.de) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) |
| 2025-02-26 01:32:35 +0100 | <mauke> | the bell labs regex code wasn't freely available, so perl 2.0 incorporated henry spencer's implementation, which used backtracking |
| 2025-02-26 01:32:29 +0100 | krei-se- | (~krei-se@p3ee0f060.dip0.t-ipconnect.de) krei-se |
| 2025-02-26 01:29:38 +0100 | <ski> | geekosaur : "IrRegular Expressions" by foof at <https://synthcode.com/scheme/irregex/> |
| 2025-02-26 01:29:31 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2025-02-26 01:26:59 +0100 | <geekosaur> | mm, right, forgot ed went back even further |
| 2025-02-26 01:21:54 +0100 | Smiles | (uid551636@id-551636.lymington.irccloud.com) Smiles |
| 2025-02-26 01:20:10 +0100 | Googulator | (~Googulato@2a01-036d-0106-0c81-ad7c-ac56-196b-c9a2.pool6.digikabel.hu) (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) |
| 2025-02-26 01:19:42 +0100 | <mauke> | https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/623521/why-does-ed-support-backreferences-but-not-alterna… |
| 2025-02-26 01:18:28 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) |
| 2025-02-26 01:17:04 +0100 | <geekosaur> | egrep |
| 2025-02-26 01:16:45 +0100 | <EvanR> | now I have to pull out the history to figure out what "long before perl" means |
| 2025-02-26 01:16:44 +0100 | Googulator78 | (~Googulato@2a01-036d-0106-0c81-ad7c-ac56-196b-c9a2.pool6.digikabel.hu) |
| 2025-02-26 01:15:31 +0100 | alfiee | (~alfiee@user/alfiee) (Ping timeout: 244 seconds) |
| 2025-02-26 01:14:16 +0100 | <mauke> | backreferences existed long before perl |
| 2025-02-26 01:14:08 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2025-02-26 01:13:47 +0100 | <mauke> | I think "perl compatible" is mostly about syntax (ok, and some features as well) |
| 2025-02-26 01:12:50 +0100 | <jackdk> | Don't we call those "perl compatible"? |
| 2025-02-26 01:11:03 +0100 | alfiee | (~alfiee@user/alfiee) alfiee |
| 2025-02-26 01:10:48 +0100 | mange | (~user@user/mange) mange |
| 2025-02-26 01:07:40 +0100 | <EvanR> | I guess irregular expressions isn't particularly marketable |
| 2025-02-26 01:03:28 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 265 seconds) |
| 2025-02-26 01:00:57 +0100 | <geekosaur> | but there's some question as to whether that's actually "regex" (I think the "actually should be regular " ship sailed years ago) |
| 2025-02-26 01:00:36 +0100 | <mauke> | parsec can nest |
| 2025-02-26 01:00:25 +0100 | <geekosaur> | if regex is extended with "functions", see raku |
| 2025-02-26 00:59:41 +0100 | <EvanR> | does it hinge on whether unlimited lookahead is regex |
| 2025-02-26 00:59:26 +0100 | <EvanR> | is parsec more or less powerful than regex |
| 2025-02-26 00:58:51 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2025-02-26 00:55:05 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 268 seconds) |
| 2025-02-26 00:51:13 +0100 | src | (~src@user/src) src |
| 2025-02-26 00:50:12 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2025-02-26 00:38:43 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 245 seconds) |
| 2025-02-26 00:37:49 +0100 | rvalue | (~rvalue@user/rvalue) rvalue |
| 2025-02-26 00:36:46 +0100 | __monty__ | (~toonn@user/toonn) (Quit: leaving) |
| 2025-02-26 00:32:08 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2025-02-26 00:28:14 +0100 | alfiee | (~alfiee@user/alfiee) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) |
| 2025-02-26 00:23:46 +0100 | alfiee | (~alfiee@user/alfiee) alfiee |
| 2025-02-26 00:21:03 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) (Ping timeout: 244 seconds) |
| 2025-02-26 00:20:18 +0100 | rvalue | (~rvalue@user/rvalue) (Quit: ZNC - https://znc.in) |
| 2025-02-26 00:16:46 +0100 | merijn | (~merijn@host-vr.cgnat-g.v4.dfn.nl) merijn |
| 2025-02-26 00:12:53 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | but yes, a splitting function is perhaps nicer here |
| 2025-02-26 00:12:43 +0100 | <monochrom> | Although, I confess that I want 0 dependencies so I wrote my own recursion :) |
| 2025-02-26 00:12:40 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | hololeap: https://paste.tomsmeding.com/QHaiHEVF |
| 2025-02-26 00:12:12 +0100 | <monochrom> | You can write your own recursion over span. But the split package does that for you. |
| 2025-02-26 00:11:39 +0100 | <monochrom> | Oh, the split package has tools for that too. |
| 2025-02-26 00:11:37 +0100 | <tomsmeding> | if you write out that <$> <*> sequence as a do-block, it gets much more readable |