Your rant is a bit unfounded for this paper as they do actually take completely standard regular expressions (no backtracking or anything like that) and extend it with one more construct. Calling it «semantic regular expressions» seems perfectly reasonable to me. What else to call it?
As for outside of the computer science sphere (which I find is quite consistent in their terminology): I do agree that it seems like it’s a lost cause and «regex» is now synonymous for «pattern matching using this one specific syntax» :(
As for outside of the computer science sphere (which I find is quite consistent in their terminology): I do agree that it seems like it’s a lost cause and «regex» is now synonymous for «pattern matching using this one specific syntax» :(