On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Mike Fikes <mikefi...@me.com> wrote: > Hey Greg, did your benchmark compare /|[\\D&&[^/]] to \\D or did it compare > the existing Clojure regex to a shortened one, making your substitution? > > (If it was the former, perhaps the existing regex is more efficient owing to > the repetition of the expression /|[\\D&&[^/]] ).
Thanks, Mike, that had not occurred to me. I had only tested the former, so I ran some benchmarks using the full expression in both versions, and they come out pretty much the same, at least on the cases I used. In any case, as Ben explained I was misinterpreting the regex anyway. Thanks, Gregg -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
