Jim Jagielski wrote: > > On Mar 13, 2007, at 1:10 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > >> >> Is this sed or pcre syntax? I'm a bit confused :) > > It's a mutant ;) But, of course, we maintain > that confusion internally with regex's being pcre...
Of course :) But it appears to be a tiny fraction of the sed language... >> Although it's sed-ish, is it misleading to confuse the user with the >> phrase sed considering the unsupported constructs? E.g. I presume >> the more complex sed language features aren't present. >> >> I'm wondering if mod_pcre_filter wouldn't be more accurate? > > 'sed' certainly gets the message across though :) > But basically it allows for regex pattern matching > and substitution in a very sed-like way. since it is only a pattern substitution subset, I'd prefer to see some RewriteBody directive or similar. As I'm looking at the module, I'm more convinced that Sed "foo" should be reserved for at least a basic sed implementation that implemented (at least!) the pre-GNU language subset. Bill
