pragma wrote:
> In article <dt0k9b$27jr$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Kyle Furlong says...
> 
>>Walter Bright wrote:
>>
>>>Added match expressions.
>>>
>>>http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Is it possible to drop in compile-time regex support? (i.e. Eric's solution)
> 
> 
> IMHO, it's not quite ready for prime-time yet.  In fact, some parts of it are
> still somewhat incomplete. :(
> 
> - Eric Anderton at yahoo

Not to knock Eric's great efforts at compile-time regex (which is seriously cool, btw), but I would be more impressed at code generation of regex parsing.  Have the compiler itself write out some highly optimized goto-like code and have it parse known regex strings at runtime in the fastest way possible.  Reminds me of the approach of the Ragel state machine (link on D Links page), but doesn't have to be anywhere near as complicated.

-- 
Regards,
James Dunne

Tom wrote:
> In article <dt088d$1svm$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Walter Bright says...
> 
>>Added match expressions.
>>
>>http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
> 
> 
> A question: I wonder, do you fix the regressions that arise on each of these
> releases? (I really ask myself 'cos I don't see that fixes in the changelog or
> maybe i'm wrong)
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> 
> P.S.: Another little question (i know, it's a second one :-D), sorry about my
> ignorance of common emoticons and stuff, what does <g> means?
> 
> Tom;

<grin>

-- 
Regards,
James Dunne

"Tom" <Tom_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:dt0m6n$29jv$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> A question: I wonder, do you fix the regressions that arise on each of
> these
> releases? (I really ask myself 'cos I don't see that fixes in the
> changelog or
> maybe i'm wrong)

I try to do the most important ones first.

> P.S.: Another little question (i know, it's a second one :-D), sorry about
> my
> ignorance of common emoticons and stuff, what does <g> means?

grin

MatchExpression is a robust feather, but too robust.
we do not need another text oriented language, Perl takes up the place.

D is complex enough, pls don't give it more syntax.
I suggest to freeze features, and improve those existence.

how about 'implicit template instantiation', 'function and delegate' etc...

Walter Bright wrote:
> Added match expressions.
> 
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html

Cool! You really have to be working like 25 hours a day at this!

What does

   "When a MatchExpression is the operand of an IfStatement
   or WhileStatement, special handling happens."

in the doc mean?


And another question: I assume all literal regexes will some day be compiled at compile time, right? Are we there yet?

Walter Bright wrote:
> Added match expressions.
> 
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html

So this

    int[] x, y;
    ...
    x=y~~42;

won't work anymore....

Stewart.

-- 
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/M d- s:- C++@ a->--- UB@ P+ L E@ W++@ N+++ o K-@ w++@ O? M V? PS- PE- Y? PGP- t- 5? X? R b DI? D G e++>++++ h-- r-- !y
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox.  Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.

> What does
>
>     "When a MatchExpression is the operand of an IfStatement
>     or WhileStatement, special handling happens."

.... Trouble.


Just curious, was this 'built in regex' on anyone's wish list besides Matthew's ?

Charlie


"Georg Wrede" <georg.wrede@nospam.org> wrote in message news:43F48BBB.1050001@nospam.org...
> Walter Bright wrote:
> > Added match expressions.
> >
> > http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
>
> Cool! You really have to be working like 25 hours a day at this!
>
> What does
>
>     "When a MatchExpression is the operand of an IfStatement
>     or WhileStatement, special handling happens."
>
> in the doc mean?
>
>
> And another question: I assume all literal regexes will some day be compiled at compile time, right? Are we there yet?

Stewart Gordon wrote:
> Walter Bright wrote:
> 
>> Added match expressions.
>>
>> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
> 
> 
> So this
> 
>     int[] x, y;
>     ...
>     x=y~~42;
> 
> won't work anymore....
> 
> Stewart.
> 

If you're not using whitespace to deliniate your tokens in the first place, you should expect things like this.

-- 
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/MU/S d-pu s:+ a-->? C++++$ UL+++ P--- L+++ !E W-- N++ o? K? w--- O M--@ V? PS PE Y+ PGP- t+ 5 X+ !R tv-->!tv b- DI++(+) D++ G e++>e h>--->++ r+++ y+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

James Dunne

"Georg Wrede" <georg.wrede@nospam.org> wrote in message news:43F48BBB.1050001@nospam.org...
> What does
>
>    "When a MatchExpression is the operand of an IfStatement
>    or WhileStatement, special handling happens."
>
> in the doc mean?

It's explained in the IfStatement and WhileStatement sections.


> And another question: I assume all literal regexes will some day be compiled at compile time, right?

Yes.

> Are we there yet?

Not even close :-(

"Stewart Gordon" <smjg_1998@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:dt2476$ii2$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Walter Bright wrote:
>> Added match expressions.
>>
>> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
>
> So this
>
>     int[] x, y;
>     ...
>     x=y~~42;
>
> won't work anymore....

That's right. Neither will:

    x = !~y;

It's in the same vein that:

    x = y/*p;

never worked, either.