Subject: COSTCO Survey Winner (Aug 21)

From: August COSTCO Rewards <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 11:08:35 -0700

COSTCO WHOLESALE

| COSTCO Rewards |

Redeem Gift Card Below:

Card # 42-3187

Heres how easy it is to redeem COSTCO Cash:

Complete the 1 minute survey: HERE

Enjoy Warehouse Savings This Week

To customize the settings for your profile and subscriptions,click here or write to Current Update Alerts

at 1644 Doral Dr Brookings, SD 57006

Well, we're talking about the theoretical limits of the language; it's not like we just haven't figured out how to do it yet. If you use pure regex, there's always going to be some (X)HTML valid code that breaks it. Maybe it's or maybe it's a certain nestire internet will be compressed to a quantum singularity and sucked do I'm going to use this code as part of the kernel for my perpetual-motion machine--can you believe those fools at the patent office keep rejecting my application? Well, I'll shhere is a bug, or unless the memory becomes full, I'm pretty sure that any VALID XML can be tokenized. As noticed, the specifics of XML are giI stand corrected on that one. Fair enough. The basic point is more or less the same, though: Just because you haven't figured out how to break it yet, that doesn't mean it always works. And if it doesn't always work, what's the point? An HTML parser will be more practical ANwhile a Regex isn't? Because if an Xm
l Parser isn't bug by definition there could be an xml that make it crash and we are back to step 0. Let say this: both the Xml Parser and this Regex try to be able to parse all the "legal" XML. They CAN parse some "illegal" XMcould crash both of thes surels contain at least one bug. 2) All programs contain at least one line of unnecessary source code. 3) By #1 and #2 and using logical induction, it's a simple matter to prove that any program can be reduced to a single line of code with a bug. (from Leabig enough to ride >>is<< biologically impossible. And if i thanks for this work of art Out of interest, did you generate the XmlTypes class in your snipt? or was it assembled by hand? Jacob Stany translated. You have to prioritize some parts over others to obtain a parser, so you need the hcussion here becauseseems to prove that is possible to process XML using RegEx and a lot of people say that the approach is useless. I think both are right. I'd l
ike to see some theoretical demonstrations (maybe is a P/NP probleme does span XML, and so you can tokenize XML with a .NET regular expression. Tokenization and parsing are very very far from the same. The above regex will accep It is a valid sequence of Xml tokens. This string is in the language of XML tokens. It is not in the language of XML, but that doesn't mean it cannot be tokenized. Just because you cannot parse something doesn't mean that it can't be tokenized. LR(0) parsers can't parssed in terms of empty strings, literals, and the empty set with concatenations, alternations, Kleene thereof (inductive concatenations), then it isn't formally regular. A lot of people here seem to think that all "regular expressions" are true, formal regular expressions. It's true that Thompson NFA regular expressions are not true regular expressions, and are not recursive. However, PCRE regex is not truly regular, and hence can be recursive. Michael Graczyk Jul 16 '12 at 5:00