Linked by Eugenia Loli on Sun 30th Jul 2006 20:57 UTC
Permalink for comment 147740
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 13:17 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 12:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/15/13 23:03 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-02-15
IMHO "SQL-like" syntax would be MUCH MORE usefull for regular expressions. Existing syntax is...crap. It's just like some kind of weird cipher, very hard to use and understand.
If you mean by "SQL-like" the syntax SQL uses for the LIKE clause, that's exactly the same pattern matching syntax that 'wildcards' use, except with '?' replaced by '_' and '*' replaced by '%'.
As far as I know, SQL doesn't have regex matching, although, apparently, most SQL implementations have one non standard form or another. MySQL uses unix regexp syntax, for instance: http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/pattern-matching.html
while regular expression syntax can be hard to read, it's actually pretty good for what it does, and no one has ever come up with a better syntax for regular-expression based pattern matching.