On Sun, 21 May 2006, Bob Proulx wrote: > Tony Abou-Assaleh wrote: > > > > -- Aborting in error for -G/-F/-E/-P, > > > > > > Definitely. Otherwise someone might think that something > > > like 'grep -E -e extendedpattern -P -e perlpattern' would work. > > > > It would be awesome if one could do that! This should go into feature > > requests. > > How often would syntax like that really be used? Sure it would be > cool. But I think people wanting pcre patterns would simply want them > all of the time. Is there really enough need to match different > styles of regular expressions to warrent the work to put that into the > code? I doubt it would be worth it in actual usage.
For most everyday usages by most users, the current feature set is sufficient. I can surely think of situations where the above syntax may make a lot of sense. Example: you have complex patterns, in general -E is faster than -P, but some patterns require the features of -P. If you have a large file, and these days it is not uncommon to have large files (or a lot of small ones), such optimization may give noticeable difference in performance. I haven't done benchmarking, so the above is hypothetical. Since we're not doing any new features at the moment, nor in the near future, and such a feature as above would be of somewhat low priority due to its complexity, my comment was half sarcastic. Cheers, TAA ----------------------------------------------------- Tony Abou-Assaleh Lecturer, Computer Science Department Brock University, St. Catharines, ON, Canada, L2S 3A1 Office: MC J215 Tel: +1(905)688-5550 ext. 5243 Fax: +1(905)688-3255 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW: http://www.cosc.brocku.ca/~taa/ ----------------------[THE END]----------------------
