Template regexes, version 2

[Craig Black]

> The mixin regexps are only at an early stage of development, but given the 
> current discussions I think it's important to know what can be done
> with templates (probably more than most people expect). In the case of 
> what I've called "pseudo-static" regexps, they are arguably more powerful 
> than the built-in regexps of DMD 0.147.
>
> I don't know where to go from here. There are a few possibilities:
> 1. use template regexps as a demonstration of the power of D templates.
> --> Implement reduced syntax, keep the code simple and not well optimised; 
> more of a proof-of-concept; go for "maximum coolness".
> 2. Like 1, but with optimisations; try to be the fastest regexp of any 
> language. (cleaner-faster-better ... but we use the built-in regexps 
> anyway <g>).
> 3. Create a standard library. This is what I was aiming for, but I don't
> think it makes sense any more.
> 4. potential integration into the language. Is this even possible?
>
> Probably the most sensible is to go with 1, to wake up the C++/boost 
> crowd. Hopefully this should also provide some direction for the built-in 
> syntax.
> Thoughts?

You are the man!  Keep up the good work!

As far as what direction to go, a stardard library makes perfect sense.  If 
Walter's kludge for regex's doesn't fit with this new approach, perhaps he 
can adapt it to make it work.  Even without this, I would much rather have 
faster regex's than language integration.

BTW, I developed a new syntax that is a spinoff of regular expressions 
(using C++).  It includes syntax to manipulate a stack and store values in a 
parse tree.  Using this language, I was able to define a parser for a modern 
object-oriented language in like 230 lines of code.  I could show you this 
stuff if you are interested.

-Craig