| To: | Tom Lord <yyyy@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: RE-ASSOC: a question about the associativity of RE concatenation |
| From: | Isamu Hasegawa <yyyyy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 10 Apr 2002 15:56:30 +0900 |
| Cc: | yyyyy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, yyyyyyyyyyyyyy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, yyyyyy@xxxxxxxxxxx, yyyyy@xxxxxxxxxx |
| References: | <200204091857.OAA35259@raptor.research.att.com><200204092229.g39MTeX00802@shade.twinsun.com><200204092254.PAA02436@morrowfield.home><200204092340.g39Neua00876@shade.twinsun.com><uelho8ehm.wl@AMBER.yamato.ibm.com><200204100453.VAA03344@morrowfield.home><ubscs855m.wl@AMBER.yamato.ibm.com><200204100635.XAA03735@morrowfield.home> |
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 23:35:07 -0700 (PDT) From: Tom Lord <yyyy@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Is your point that the language of the spec is poor? Or that all > those interpretations should be permitted? I didn't argue about the validity of interpretations in last two mails. What I wanted to say is that the left-associativity of the grammar isn't a rationale of the semantics of regexps concatenations, I think. Thanks, -- Isamu Hasegawa IBM Japan, Ltd. |
| Previous by Date: | Re: RE-ASSOC: a question about the associativity of RE concatenation, Tom Lord |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | The Procedural Ball (was Re: RE-ASSOC: a question about the associativity of RE concatenation), Andrew Josey |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: RE-ASSOC: a question about the associativity of RE concatenation, Tom Lord |
| Next by Thread: | Re: RE-ASSOC: a question about the associativity of RE concatenation, Paul Eggert |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [All Lists] |