in reply to Re^2: Analysis of Regular Expressions
in thread Analysis of Regular Expressions
Uh.. boys... (JavaFan and LanX) gimme a break...
I mean yes, I got my master in CS 13 years ago and there's no need to remind me of Gödel, the halting problem and similar.
And YES, you are theoretically right. And NO, you are practically (especially JavaFan) way off. There are no countable infinite sets on finite computers, and if you have a FINITE SET of input strings, the cardinality of the sets that represent the results of the presented regexs may very well differ and thus be sortable. So your ivory tower arguments are mostly for the dustbin...
I know, that for a Java Fan it might be very hard to adopt the Perl-inherent DWIM scheme when interpreting questions, but why LanX jumps on that bandwaggon is beyond me.
Fotunately I got already some interesting hints in this thread and am working on a SOLUTION. Yes - will be presented for discussion.
Bye
PetaMem All Perl: MT, NLP, NLU
|
---|
Replies are listed 'Best First'. | |
---|---|
Re^4: Analysis of Regular Expressions
by LanX (Saint) on Mar 17, 2010 at 22:18 UTC | |
Re^4: Analysis of Regular Expressions
by JavaFan (Canon) on Mar 18, 2010 at 00:27 UTC | |
Re^4: Analysis of Regular Expressions (counterexample of slow regexes)
by LanX (Saint) on Mar 19, 2010 at 13:14 UTC |