Re: State-of-the-art algorithms for lexical analysis?

gah4 <gah4@u.washington.edu>
Mon, 6 Jun 2022 12:25:56 -0700 (PDT)

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
State-of-the-art algorithms for lexical analysis? costello@mitre.org (Roger L Costello) (2022-06-05)
Re: State-of-the-art algorithms for lexical analysis? gah4@u.washington.edu (gah4) (2022-06-05)
Re: State-of-the-art algorithms for lexical analysis? DrDiettrich1@netscape.net (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2022-06-06)
Re: State-of-the-art algorithms for lexical analysis? costello@mitre.org (Roger L Costello) (2022-06-06)
Re: State-of-the-art algorithms for lexical analysis? 480-992-1380@kylheku.com (Kaz Kylheku) (2022-06-06)
Re: State-of-the-art algorithms for lexical analysis? gah4@u.washington.edu (gah4) (2022-06-06)
State-of-the-art algorithms for lexical analysis? christopher.f.clark@compiler-resources.com (Christopher F Clark) (2022-06-06)
Re: State-of-the-art algorithms for lexical analysis? gah4@u.washington.edu (gah4) (2022-06-06)
Re: State-of-the-art algorithms for lexical analysis? DrDiettrich1@netscape.net (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2022-06-07)
Re: State-of-the-art algorithms for lexical analysis? christopher.f.clark@compiler-resources.com (Christopher F Clark) (2022-06-07)
Re: State-of-the-art algorithms for lexical analysis? DrDiettrich1@netscape.net (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2022-06-08)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: gah4 <gah4@u.washington.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2022 12:25:56 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: Compilers Central
References: <Adh5kg76Z0xZslIuRRyzgUhteE2M6A==> 22-06-009
Injection-Info: gal.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="79244"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com"
Keywords: lex, performance, comment
Posted-Date: 06 Jun 2022 16:05:09 EDT
In-Reply-To: 22-06-009

On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 8:06:28 AM UTC-7, Roger L Costello wrote:


(snip, I wrote)
> > I suspect that if regexes hadn't previously
> > been defined, we might come up with
> > something different today.


> Wow! That is a remarkable statement.


Well, mostly, regex were defined based on what was reasonable to do on
computers at the time. It seems reasonable, then, with the more powerful
computers of today, to expect that more features would have been added.


Some of that was done in the later ERE, Extended Regular Expression.


But there is a strong tendency not to break backward compatibility,
and so not add new features later.
[See my note about DFAs a few messages back. EREs are just syntactic
sugar on regular REs so sure. PCREs are swell but they are a lot
slower since backreferences mean you need to be able to back up.
-John]

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.