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: > > http://infosoc.uni-koeln.de/pipermail/php/1999-February/000019.html > > 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, > > http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/john_maddock/proposals/exregex.htm
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
