At what point do we drop the term "regular" expressions altogether for stuff like this? This is going to sound pedantic since I know that most popularly-used regex implementations are themselves non-regular, but I feel like we're just piling more and more stuff on top of good-old-regexes and trying to turn the concept into a catch-all for anything that does pattern matching on text.
I guess it just feels icky that "regular expressions" has inherent meaning (i.e. can be represented entirely by a finite automaton) which has become completely diluted at this point.
That rant aside, cool paper. The idea of bridging formal language theory with modern computational tooling feels timely. I think I would've liked to see more exploration of oracle-based costs, for instance:
* What happens when oracle outputs are inconsistent/uncertain?
* What happens as oracle interactions become more computationally expensive?
I guess it just feels icky that "regular expressions" has inherent meaning (i.e. can be represented entirely by a finite automaton) which has become completely diluted at this point.
That rant aside, cool paper. The idea of bridging formal language theory with modern computational tooling feels timely. I think I would've liked to see more exploration of oracle-based costs, for instance:
* What happens when oracle outputs are inconsistent/uncertain?
* What happens as oracle interactions become more computationally expensive?