On Mar 13, 2007, at 3:34 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
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.
:)
Well, like I said, the main issue was avoiding the overhead of
having mod_ext_filter do simple in-line replacements by calling
sed to do 's/foo/bar/'... So yeah, it's closer to what a Perl
guy would think than a Unix sed-head :)
