On 3/3/23 6:47 AM, Dan Cross wrote:
> Oh, for sure; to be clear, it was obvious that in the earlier 
> discussion the original was just part of something larger.

Good.  For a moment I thought that you might be thinking it was stand alone.

> FWIW, this RE seems ok to me; the additional context makes it unlikely 
> to match something else accidentally.

:-)

> It needn't be special.  The point is simply that there's some external 
> knowledge that can be brought to bear to guide the shape of the REs.

ACK

I've heard "domain (specific) knowledge" used to refer to both extremely 
specific training in a field and -- as you have -- data that is having 
something done to it.

> In this case, you know that log lines won't begin with `___ 123 
> 456:789` or other similar junk.

They darned well had better not.

> Kinda. The "machine" in this case is actually an abstraction, like a 
> Turing machine. The salient point here is that REs map to finite state 
> machines, and in particular, one need not keep (say) a stack of prior 
> states when simulating them. Note that even in an NDFA simulation, 
> where one keeps track of what states one may be in, one doesn't need 
> to keep track of how one got into those states.

ACK

> Obviously in a real implementation you've got the program counter, 
> register contents, local variables, etc, all of which consume 
> "memory" in the conventional sense. But the point is that you don't 
> need additional memory proportional to anything other than the size 
> of the RE. DFA implementation could be implemented entirely with 
> `switch` and `goto` if one wanted, as opposed to a bunch of mutually 
> recursive function calls, NDFA simulation similarly except that 
> you need some (bounded) additional memory to hold the active set 
> of states. Contrast this with a pushdown automata, which can parse 
> a context-free language, in which a stack is maintained that can 
> store additional information relative to the input (for example, 
> an already seen character). Pushdown automata can, for example, 
> recognize matched parenthesis while regular languages cannot.

I think I understand the gist of what you're saying, but I need to 
re-read it and think about it a little bit.

> Anyway, sorry, this is all rather more theoretical than is perhaps 
> interesting or useful.

Apology returned to sender as unnecessary.

You are providing the requested thought provoking discussion, which is 
exactly what I asked for.  I feel like I'm going to walk away from this 
thread wiser based on the thread's content plus all additional reading 
material on top of the thread itself.

> Bottom line is, I think your REs are probably fine. `egrep` will 
> complain at you if they are not, and I wouldn't worry too much about 
> optimizing them: I'd "stop" whenever you're happy that you've got 
> something understandable that matches what you want it to match.

Thank you (again) Dan.  :-)



-- 
Grant. . . .
unix || die