• cm0002@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    edit-2
    15 hours ago

    Just outta curiosity:

    Full o1 model

    “\\id:\[]]+\\\\[]]+\\\”

    Claude 3.5 Haiku:

    Never used elisp, no idea of any of this is right lmao

    • ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      14 hours ago

      o1 without Markdown misformatting:

      \\id:\\[^]]+\\\\\[^]]+\\\
      

      No idea what the rectangles are supposed to be, I just copy-pasted it

      • marcos@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 hours ago

        They are valid unicode points that your font doesn’t know about.

        … or at least they represent that, but I think there’s a character that looks like one too.

        • ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 hours ago

          It’s U+E001 from a Private Use Area. The UnicodePad app renders it as something between 鉮 and 鋁 (separate boxes stricken through; I wasn’t able to find it even with Google Lens)

    • Skullgrid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 hours ago

      I swear to god,someone must have written an intermediary language between regex and actual programming, or I’m going to eventaully do it before I blow my fucking brains out.

      • BassTurd@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 hours ago

        How do you think that would look? Regex isn’t particularly complicated, just a bit to remember. I’m trying to picture how you would represent a regex expression in a higher level language. I think one of its biggest benefits is the ability to shove so much information into a random looking string. I suppose you could write functions like, startswith, endswith, alpha(4), or something like that, but in the end, is that better?

        • frezik@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          10 hours ago

          People have unironically done that. No, it isn’t better. The fundamental mental model is the same.

        • Skullgrid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          10 hours ago

          I suppose you could write functions like, startswith, endswith, alpha(4), or something like that,

          yes.

          but in the end, is that better?

          YES.

          startswith('text');
          lengthMustBe(5);
          onlyContain(CHARSETS.ALPHANUMERICS); 
          endswith('text');
          

          is much more legible than []],[.<{}>,]‘text’[[]]][][)()(a-z,0-9){}{><}<>{}‘text’{}][][

          • BassTurd@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 hours ago

            Assuming “text” in your example is a placeholder for a 5 digit alpha string, it can be written like this in regex: /[a-zA-Z0-9]{5}/

            If ”text" is literal, then your statement is impossible.

            I think that when it gets to more complex expressions like a phone number with country code that accepts different formats, the verbosity of a higher level language will be more confusing, or at least more difficult to take in quickly.