Re: RFC 198 (v2) Boolean Regexes

HI Tom,

Welcome to England (I presume)

> This seems very complicated.  Did you look at the Ram:6 recipe on
> expressing AND, OR, and NOT  in a regex?  For example, to do
> /FOO/ && /BAR/ you need not write /FOO.*BAR|BAR.*FOO/ -- and in
> fact, should not, as it doesn't work properly on some pairs!
> For example, /CAN/ && /ANAL/ can't be written /CAN.*ANAL|ANAL.*CAN/
> of you expect to match "CANAL".   Overlaps bite you.  You really
> need /(?=.*CAN)(?=.*ANAL)/ instead, which permits multiple assertions.
> Please check out the recipe I'm talking about.
>
> --tom, from a strange place

I will start by admiting I dont have the RAM.   I was brainstorming ideas (my
day job involves a lot of brainstorming) and trying to think of new/better ways
to do things.  I am more interested in concepts than syntax.

Richard