2 Sep
2009
2 Sep
'09
1:44 a.m.
2009/9/1 Drew Crampsie <drew.crampsie@gmail.com>
2009/9/1 Gustavo <gugamilare@gmail.com>:
2009/9/1 <drew.crampsie@gmail.com>
I'd personally much prefer a 'lispy' (read : verbose and understandable) implementation of regexps then the one from perl, and still wouldn't
want it
included as part of CLtL3..
cl-ppcre allow the use of sexps as regexps. I think that they are "verbose" and "understandable".
So it might ... but as per section 4 "Preference will be given to topics that cannot be implemented portably and have multiple existing implementations.".
I'm not saying that cl-ppcre should be made part of cltl3, I actually agree with you. That was just an off-topic comment (if someone doesn't know that already).