However, regular expression support is typically built into only
scripting languages,
such as Ruby, Perl, and awk. This is a shame: regular expressions,
although cryptic,
are a powerful tool for working with text. And having them built in,
rather than tacked
on through a library interface, makes a big difference.
The above statement is in the book "Programming Ruby" the second edition.
Why the author said "this is a shame"? I don't understand well. Thanks.
Regards.
I see that language was carried along into the second edition. I take
the authors' bemoan the fact that you can't conveniently use regex's
in command-line expressions or C++ programs AFAIK, etc. Perhaps if
there were stand-alone regex packages, then possibly regex's could be
integrated into other packages.
On the other hand, the authors may have totally different things in
mind.
HTH,
Richard
On Sep 10, 10:48 pm, Young Wah <rubyv...@gmail.com> wrote:
However, regular expression support is typically built into only
scripting languages,
such as Ruby, Perl, and awk. This is a shame: regular expressions,
although cryptic,
are a powerful tool for working with text. And having them built in,
rather than tacked
on through a library interface, makes a big difference.The above statement is in the book "Programming Ruby" the second edition.
Why the author said "this is a shame"? I don't understand well. Thanks.Regards.
I believe the author means that it would be wonderful if other
languages had built-in regular expressions too.
(it's a shame that other languages don't have built-in regex support
=> it would be wonderful if they did)
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 10:48 PM, Young Wah <rubyview@gmail.com> wrote:
However, regular expression support is typically built into only
scripting languages,
such as Ruby, Perl, and awk. This is a shame: regular expressions,
although cryptic,
are a powerful tool for working with text. And having them built in,
rather than tacked
on through a library interface, makes a big difference.The above statement is in the book "Programming Ruby" the second edition.
Why the author said "this is a shame"? I don't understand well. Thanks.