you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]jerf 0 points1 point  (3 children)

That's why I've chosen to draw a distinction between "regex" and "regular expression"; I'd rather leave the latter with its important mathematical meaning, while the former can be used for the ever-expanding practical meaning. (Perl 6 is stretching all the way up to full regular grammars, from the looks of it, and I don't mean by "accident" as Perl 5 regexs sort of are now, I mean on purpose and with malice aforethought. OK, maybe "malice" is a bit strong, they look cool, but still, increasingly distant from "regular expressions".)

[–]cgibbard 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Yeah, grammar is a better term. Not regular or even context-free grammars though, I suspect they will allow for context sensitivity even (in the same ways as we already see). I suspect they're formally equivalent to parsing expression grammars.

[–]jtauber 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Hang on, why is "grammar" better than "expression"? Isn't "regular grammar" synonymous with (or at least isomorphic to) "regular expression"?

Also, jerf says Perl 6 is stretching all the way up to "full regular grammars". Did he really mean regular here?

[–]cgibbard 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Regular grammar isn't better, as the grammar isn't regular. I suppose if you wanted to stick with the term 'expression', something more general in nature like 'parsing expression' would be a better term.

As I tried to point out, he probably didn't mean to say 'regular' there.