Jump to content

Talk:Comparison of regular expression engines

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Monger (talk | contribs) at 00:54, 17 July 2007 (== Removing flavors with no information ==). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Ill-defined terms

Too many of the terms used as headings are vague or apply only to the terminology used for one RE engine. What this article really needs is a glossary of its terms.

There's also a fair point to be made that many of the tables here could be prose, and that would facilitate citing them. -Harmil 19:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree a terminology description would be useful. However I strongly disagree some of the tables should be converted to text. First because that takes away this articles main feature - the ability to see differences within seconds without reading for hours - and secondly citing Wikipedia is discouraged anyway. // Sping 17:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Care to give examples of terminology you consider too vague or applicable only to "the terminology used for one RE engine?" (I'm not really sure what you mean by that.) I think the terms are fairly straightforward. IMO, a bigger problem is that a very large number of significant features supported by some regex libraries are not currently represented in the comparison tables here. --Monger 04:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing flavors with no information

Unless others disagree, I plan to remove from the comparison tables any flavors and engines which currently have no information about their features listed. Currently, this includes the following:

  • ActionScript3.0
  • Boost.Xpressive
  • Grep
  • GNU Grep
  • GRETA
  • Jakarta/Regexp
  • Oniguruma
  • SubEthaEdit
  • Tcl 8.1
  • TextMate

I would encourage others to list information about these engines' features, especially since a few of them are very significant and commonly used. However, I do not see any value in listing them without any information (none include any more than a couple "no"s). --Monger 00:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]