On Tue, 2003-02-04 at 17:15, Neil Conway wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-02-04 at 11:59, Tom Lane wrote:
> > I'm about to go off and look at whether we can absorb the Tcl regex
> > package, which is Spencer's new baby. That will not be a solution for
> > 7.3.anything, but it could be an answer for 7.4.
> Sounds like we had about the same idea at about the same time -- I
> emailed Henry Spencer inquiring about the new RE engine last night. I
> came across a post this post that indicates he was planning to package
> the new RE engine separately:
> but I wasn't able to find a release of it anywhere -- I'll let the list
> know if/when he gets back to me.
> Another option is to consider a different regular expression engine. At
> least according to the benchmarks here,
I did not see anything about MULTIBYTE there, so it might be worth
experimenting on some MB charsets as well.
> Spencer's implementation is outperformed by some other RE engines,
> notably PCRE (www.pcre.org). But switching to another engine might
> impose backward-compatibility problems, in terms of the details of the
> RE syntax.
Yeah, it seems that POSIX (seemingly Spencers code) there is unable to
do some tests (the NA's in benchmark tables).
We could try a soft switch by having both implementations for a release
or two with different operators. At least good for comparing/testing.
Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly