> That said, having regex around in different standard vs. crate options is not necessarily the ideal

What 1: both regex and fancy-regex are crates. Regex is under the rust-lang umbrella but it’s not part of the stdlib.

What 2: having different options is the point of third partly libraries, why would you have a third party library which is the exact same thing as the standard library?

▲

librasteve 14 hours ago | parent [-]

so Rust has no regex in the standard library, basic/fast regex under the rust-lang umbrella in a crate and fancy-regex is a 3rd party crate

not having different options is the point of (batteries included) standard libraries ;-)

▲

burntsushi 13 hours ago | parent [-]

We (I am on libs-api in addition to authoring the regex crate) specifically eschewed a batteries included standard library. The fact that `regex` was its own thing was the best thing that ever happened to it. It let me iterate on its API independent of the standard library.

	▲	librasteve 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		fair enough - there are pros and cons, but in many situations that _can_ lead to balkanisation of the language Raku has specifically chosen the "kitchen sink" option with a massive amount of cool stuff included ... I would argue that have both regex and Grammars tightly in the core language syntax is a big win in that case (and the default choice of Str as graphemes) with Rust and Raku that's mitigated by crate and zef respectively - both reliable, unified package manager ecosystems