Re: is lex useful?

dmr@bell-labs.com (Dennis Ritchie)
30 Jun 1996 16:53:44 -0400

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[17 earlier articles]
Re: is lex useful? kanze@lts.sel.alcatel.de (1996-06-27)
Re: is lex useful? bart@time.cirl.uoregon.edu (1996-06-30)
Re: is lex useful? Robert.Corbett@Eng.Sun.COM (1996-06-30)
Re: is lex useful? leichter@smarts.com (1996-06-30)
Re: is lex useful? trd@murlibobo.cs.mu.OZ.AU (1996-06-30)
Re: is lex useful? WStreett@shell.monmouth.com (1996-06-30)
Re: is lex useful? dmr@bell-labs.com (1996-06-30)
Re: is lex useful? clark@quarry.zk3.dec.com (1996-07-01)
Re: is lex useful? bromage@cs.mu.OZ.AU (1996-07-02)
Re: is lex useful? kanze@lts.sel.alcatel.de (1996-07-02)
Re: is lex useful? colas@aye.inria.fr (1996-07-04)
Re: is lex useful? trd@lister.cs.mu.OZ.AU (1996-07-05)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: dmr@bell-labs.com (Dennis Ritchie)
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 30 Jun 1996 16:53:44 -0400
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 96-06-073 96-06-105 96-06-108
Keywords: lex, i18n

  ... Dennis Ritchie (I think) wrote a paper on wide-character regular
          expression matching a few years ago; it used to be included in the
          papers that came with Plan 9, but I haven't seen an online copy in
          several years.


Probably the paper being thought of is the one by Rob Pike and Ken
Thompson; it's at


http://plan9.bell-labs.com/plan9/doc/utf.html


It's not especially detailed about specific techniques for REs,
but it describes the general approach used in Plan 9: use UTF-8
externally, convert to 16-bit Unicode internally.


Dennis
--


Post a followup to this message

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