On Sunday, 4 de September de 2011 21:31:50 Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote: > I think maybe it's better to continue the discussion on a separate thread? > > Apparently everyone agrees that QRegExp needs improvements and fixups, > but what exactly are the expectations for the default regexp engine > for Qt5? Since (apparently) the discussion is still going on, it seems > to me that no consensus has been reached yet. > > So, please, discuss: what are the features people want to be supported > in 5.0? What to do with the current engine (keep it as the default in > order not to break anything, or change it to the RegExp2 > implementation, or overhaul it, etc.)? Did anyone do some research > with an alternative engine implementation (PCRE, ICU, V8, etc.) and > can provide some results?
The main feature we want is to not write our own engine. We want to use an
existing, proven engine.
The idea to use JS syntax has a lot of benefits. It's an established standard
and we need to have it anyway, due to QtScript, QtWebKit and QtDeclarative.
But from my point of view, C++ developers expect to have something with the
Perl syntax and its features.
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago (AT) macieira.info - thiago (AT) kde.org
Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
PGP/GPG: 0x6EF45358; fingerprint:
E067 918B B660 DBD1 105C 966C 33F5 F005 6EF4 5358
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Qt5-feedback mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt.nokia.com/mailman/listinfo/qt5-feedback
