On 2014-02-14 07:12, Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote: > On 13 February 2014 18:52, Matthew Woehlke wrote: >>> Why does the Qt5 QRegExp documentation not mention QRegularExpression? > > Because it's an oversight, I guess... patches for the docs are more > than welcome! :)
Naturally :-). Comments like the above are as much "hey, did you know that..." as anything. Don't know if I'd have time to patch it though. > (The big picture is that QRegularExpression is not a 1:1 drop in > replacement for QRegExp. Not only the Perl-compatible regexs are > significantly different, it doesn't support the other match types > supported by QRegExp (such as substring or UNIX wildcards) Sure; it was the way it Milian presented it as much as anything that caused me to feel there should be a cross-mention. That said... is there any technical reason why QRegExp couldn't sprout a PCRE expression type, that would use QRegularExpression internally? That would neatly solve the expression types problem (though QRegularExpression would still have a better API...). And also everyone already supporting QRegExp would suddenly get PCRE support "for free". And in fact, back to the original question, I think this would be a Very Good Thing for kate, in order to not have to suddenly port every HL in existence to PCRE's. One, kate could continue to use QRegExp (less API change), and two, could add a way for HL's to specify at a file- or even rule-level which syntax to use, with the default being "classic" QRegExp. That way HL's opt in to the new PCRE's, but old HL's would continue to work. -- Matthew _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
