undefined | Better HN

0 pointstyingq4y ago0 comments

You can get a feel for what that would look like here: https://metacpan.org/release/CHROMATIC/Regexp-English-1.01/v...

But then you're just memorizing things like 'start_of_line' instead of '^'. Perhaps easier to read, but no easier to write.

0 comments

wruza4y ago

        -> start_of_line
        -> literal('Flippers')
        -> literal(':')
        -> optional
                -> whitespace_char
        -> end
        -> remember
                -> multiple
                        -> digit;

I literally can’t parse this as a whole. /^Flippers:\s?(\d+)/ is so much more obvious compared to that utter nonsense.

PennRobotics4y ago

Like most code, it's easier to write regex than to read it later. In my recent vim history:

    /(\([^()]\|\n\)*\n\([^()]\|\n\)*)

This was from two days ago. I think I was searching a huge sheet of regex match groups for any having line breaks to join. In a month, I'm not even sure I would recognize that I had authored this.

wruza4y ago

So what. That was a problem you had to solve, imagine how helpless you’d feel if you had it with no regex available. Matching non-parenthesis or newline for two lines (prefix and suffix unrestricted) it is. Idk if it took half an hour or more to implement that in python, js or (god forbid) a low level language. You probably made it in less than a minute. And nobody would take their time to read a page of .substr(i, -(j-i)-1) two days later either.

jazzyjackson4y ago

not every solution has to be reusable

balabaster4y ago

Your long-hand isn't quite the same as your regex...it should be remember -> one_or_more -> digit;

In regex parlance, \d+ explicitly allows for one or more digits. Multiple tacitly implies 2 or more which would be \d{2,}

Also, your end char (which I assume you mean $) would be after the remember -> one_or_more -> digit;

wruza4y ago

I didn’t refer to the manual (which is the entire goal of that format, isn’t it?) and don’t know what ‘multiple’ really means. So I stand both corrected and confirmed, I guess.

That ‘end’ thing just closes the ‘optional’ group, I believe. There is no $ in an English form of this regex either.

cinntaile4y ago

Readability is very important though. If you can spend a couple of more seconds of programmming time to prevent several minutes(or longer!) of understanding time, I'd call that a good use of resources. I don't think that link is quite there yet but it's a good start.

tyingqOP4y ago

It's more readable individually, but for many regexes the verbose nature could make it harder to read overall.

Zababa4y ago

There's a good article about K that can give you a feel on how long names may not always be more readable: http://nsl.com/papers/denial.html

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

wruza4y ago

        -> start_of_line
        -> literal('Flippers')
        -> literal(':')
        -> optional
                -> whitespace_char
        -> end
        -> remember
                -> multiple
                        -> digit;

I literally can’t parse this as a whole. /^Flippers:\s?(\d+)/ is so much more obvious compared to that utter nonsense.

PennRobotics4y ago

Like most code, it's easier to write regex than to read it later. In my recent vim history:

    /(\([^()]\|\n\)*\n\([^()]\|\n\)*)

This was from two days ago. I think I was searching a huge sheet of regex match groups for any having line breaks to join. In a month, I'm not even sure I would recognize that I had authored this.

wruza4y ago

jazzyjackson4y ago

not every solution has to be reusable

balabaster4y ago

Your long-hand isn't quite the same as your regex...it should be remember -> one_or_more -> digit;

In regex parlance, \d+ explicitly allows for one or more digits. Multiple tacitly implies 2 or more which would be \d{2,}

Also, your end char (which I assume you mean $) would be after the remember -> one_or_more -> digit;

wruza4y ago

I didn’t refer to the manual (which is the entire goal of that format, isn’t it?) and don’t know what ‘multiple’ really means. So I stand both corrected and confirmed, I guess.

That ‘end’ thing just closes the ‘optional’ group, I believe. There is no $ in an English form of this regex either.

cinntaile4y ago

tyingqOP4y ago

It's more readable individually, but for many regexes the verbose nature could make it harder to read overall.

Zababa4y ago

There's a good article about K that can give you a feel on how long names may not always be more readable: http://nsl.com/papers/denial.html

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse