Re: Line disciplines (was Re: RFC 69 (v3) Standardize input record separator)

Well, ok, one "language" is just a subset of the other (guess I didn't
communicate that), but they are still distinct and still cause for
concern. 


However, I think that if we're going to write this DFA at all, then the
user SHOULD have the choice of using it for normal regex matchs, by
specifying a specific flag (my choice was 'd').  Alternatively, the person
should be able to use the regular regex engine for the line-end matchs if
he wants expressiveness at the expense of speed.

			Dave

On Thu, 17 Aug 2000, Bart Lateur wrote:

> On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 07:39:33 -0700 (PDT), Dave Storrs wrote:
> 
> >	The idea of having two different regex "languages" in Perl makes
> >me very, very nervous.  Potential for confusion 
> 
> It should.
> 
> However, I was talking about two different rgex implementations, not two
> different languages. I would make the notation the same for both.
> Except: there are things that you generally can't do with a DFA, such as
> capturing submatches, and repeated matches like
> 
> 	/(['"]).*?\1/
> 
> (--> the "\1"). I think that's about it.
>  
> And the DFA would only be used for input line terminator scans. No user
> choice.
> 
> -- 
> 	Bart.
>