[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Ugly regexps
From: |
Stefan Kangas |
Subject: |
Re: Ugly regexps |
Date: |
Thu, 4 Mar 2021 12:35:58 -0600 |
Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes:
>> I was going to ask why not just do PCRE, but then I realized I'm not
>> exactly sure what the syntactical differences are. (We obviously lack
>> some features.) AFAIR, Emacs regexps don't exactly match GNU grep,
>> egrep, Perl, or anything else really.
>
> These things don't exactly match eachother, do they?
There is also a POSIX standard for BRE and ERE that we don't follow.
My point is that we could match one of the above, even if they don't
match each other.
> The "biting" effect is surely small. I have little difficulty using
> grep, egrep and awk, all of whose regexp notations differ somewhat.
I am happy to hear that this works well for you. Two decades after
writing my first regexp, I still tend to forget sometimes (oh wait is it
\+ in sed again?). Then I have to look these stupid details up for the
Nth time.
> There's not a lot wrong with Emacs's regexp notation. It works, works
> well, and we're all familiar with it.
Of course it gets the job done in the sense that you can write a regexp
that will match what you want.
But it is overly verbose in common cases, making regexps harder than
they need to be to read, understand and modify.
- Ugly regexps, Stefan Monnier, 2021/03/02
- Re: Ugly regexps, Stefan Kangas, 2021/03/02
- Re: Ugly regexps, Eli Zaretskii, 2021/03/03
- Re: Ugly regexps, Stefan Monnier, 2021/03/03
- Re: Ugly regexps, Eli Zaretskii, 2021/03/03
- Re: Ugly regexps, Stefan Monnier, 2021/03/03
- Re: Ugly regexps, Stefan Kangas, 2021/03/03
- Re: Ugly regexps, Eli Zaretskii, 2021/03/03
- Re: Ugly regexps, Stefan Kangas, 2021/03/03
- Re: Ugly regexps, Stefan Kangas, 2021/03/03
- Re: Ugly regexps, Stefan Kangas, 2021/03/03
- Re: Ugly regexps, Dmitry Gutov, 2021/03/03