Re: Hash Function

[Sergei Steshenko]

>________________________________
> From: Dimitri Maziuk <address@hidden>
>To: Sergei Steshenko <address@hidden> 
>Cc: "address@hidden" <address@hidden> 
>Sent: Wednesday, December 5, 2012 7:51 PM
>Subject: Re: Hash Function
> 
>On 12/05/2012 11:43 AM, Sergei Steshenko wrote:
>
>> Ironically, Octave has PCRE - _Perl_-Compatible Regular Expressions.
>> 
>> So, the point you are trying to make is dubious.
>> 
>> Of course, Perl is more convenient. But if the OP means to transfer
>his scripts to Windows world in which Perl is not installed by default...
>
>Right. And octave, unlike perl, ships standard on every version of
>windows since 3.11.
>
>I'm sure I can make a plausible-sounding argument for using electron
>microscope to hammer nails. But it doesn't make the idea any less bad.
>
>-- 
>Dimitri Maziuk
>Programmer/sysadmin
>BioMagResBank, UW-Madison -- http://www.bmrb.wisc.edu
>
>
>
>

The point is that if the project is to be transferred to Windows world, then 
it's quite possible the final customer has Octave or Matlab installed because 
that's the tool they use anyway, and Perl not installed.

Even I on my Linux box with self-built Perl, Python, Octave, etc in my Octave 
scripts I do _simple_ parsing in Octave - PCRE works quite fine and not 
difficult to use.

If I were to write Verilog parser (which I did in the past), I wouldn't be 
doing it in Octave despite PCRE presence.

The OP had a really simple thing to do, so Octave idiosyncrasies are not a 
problem - the code is almost as compact as Perl.

Regards,
  Sergei.