Hi --

On Thu, 17 Apr 2003, Hal E. Fulton wrote:

> Glad we're thinking alike... maybe this idea
> is not dead after all?
>
> Passing in a binding is a good idea. But I
> think it should be the second param and default
> to nil.
>
> I also think there should be a debugging option,
> so we can print out submatches and such, if we
> need to.
>
> And I favor a way to bind submatches to Ruby
> variables within the notation, so that we might
> almost never need to call #match and do explicit
> assignments.
>
> If the notation is "Ruby-like" (i.e., with
> statement terminators allowed but optional)
> we could still do one-liners. So these two
> would be equivalent:
>
>   pattern = RegexLang.new(<<EOF)
>   foo
>   bar
>   baz
>   EOF
>
>   pattern2 = RegexLang.new("foo;bar;baz")
>
> Now, your thoughts? Or those of others?

I have a few questions -- sort of just "academic" interest, as I am
(as you know) one of those freaky people who think regular expressions
are incredibly cool and elegant and have no intention of abandoning
them :-)

The questions being... what exactly would be happening in the above?
In what sense is it a "language"?  And at what point would you be
matching something?  Could you show a mock-up example of a whole real
case?  Do you know the way to San Jose?


David

-- 
David Alan Black
home: dblack / superlink.net
work: blackdav / shu.edu
Web:  http://pirate.shu.edu/~blackdav