----- Original Message ----- > From: Thiago Macieira <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Cc: > Sent: Sunday, September 4, 2011 3:53 PM > Subject: Re: [Qt5-feedback] QRegExp in Qt 5 (was: V8 import to QtBase) > > 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.
Most of the tools I come across when working with RegEx use the PERL syntax. So from a standpoint of consistency, the PERL syntax is expected. At least I personally don't see any issue that JS related stuff (QtSCript, QtWebKit, QtDeclarative) should use the JS syntax; while the C++ developers (etc.) uses the PERL syntax. That said, my biggest issue with the current QRegExp is that it doesn't support most of RegEx. So I end up figuring out the RegEx in a standard tool, then testing and retesting with Qt until I get something QRegExp supports that provides the expected behavior. So, regardless of what syntax ultimately is used, having full RegEx support would be a very good thing that would reduce a lot of headaches. I do agree that this is something that should be sourced from an external library if at all possible. Perhaps for Boost RegEx (http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_47_0/libs/regex/doc/html/index.html) would be a good choice for some standardization? It also supports various syntax implementations at least according to the docs listed there. (No, I haven't used it. This is just a thought.) $0.02 Ben _______________________________________________ Qt5-feedback mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt.nokia.com/mailman/listinfo/qt5-feedback
