On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 9:06 AM, Yue Wang
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 2:29 PM, luigi scarso
wrote: Anyway, I highly respect the ConTeXt and LuaTeX's work. But if Taco and Hans can :
- use a proper regexp library (like lrexlib?), not the silly lpeg
PEG are not silly at all. PEG *include* regex, but not viceversa, and it seems to have the same power of CFG, so you can build a parser for pratically anything (and you can not do this with regex) . Perhaps the reverse sentence has more sense: drop the "silly" (?) regex, use the new peg. For what I know the reverse side of lpeg is that a file must be loaded in memory completly.
Well, I don't like to know what kind of thing is superior ... micro kernel is superior than monolithic kernel, but...
Wrong paragon .
From *mathematical* point of view, the set of all regular languages are a subset of PEG languages . PEG are more powerful than regex --it's not an opinion, it's a fact.
The key reason for this is, more people are familiar with regexp. so if you can build a 100% compatible regexp module on top of lpeg in ConTeXt, it will be ok, or even better...
We already have lua for simple string manipulation, and lpeg for other stuffs . Again we don't need regex .
- full support of xslt:)
why not xquery too? Are mkiv supposed to be a full xml processor ?
No. I mean the user can have an option to convert an xml (that is, a context document) using (maybe external) xslt tool. This won't be too difficult to implement ...
hmm, external tools call for platform /SO issue ... Personally xsltproc in linux it's OK -- I don't need an integration , I prefear separations of concerns.
A bit of xslt can be done with lpeg (and not regex),
a bit == far from all
It's enough for simple xml processing . If you need more, are you sure that you are using the right tool ?
Things might be a lot better...
and worse too . Things are now a lot better than before ,IMMO .
it should be.
It is . -- luigi