On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 2:29 PM, luigi scarso<
luigi.scarso@gmail.com> 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