On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 10:57:39AM -0400, Ricardo SIGNES wrote:
I know this has been brought up before, but I just thought I'd voice my deep
desire: mutt should be able to have backrefs to its regexen. If I get a
'vote' in future development, this is how I would cast it. My C is crappy, or
On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 03:57:13PM -0700, Michael Elkins wrote:
While this might look simple, it's more difficult to implement than you
might think. Why? Becuse the regexp here is not just one regular
No, I know how difficult it is. ;)
At any rate, your example above can be solved as
On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 05:08:25PM +0200, Roman Neuhauser wrote:
my deep desire: mutt should be able to have backrefs to its regexen.
this reminds me: how hard would it be to make mutt use libpcre?
And, how much would it slow down / bloat up mutt, if at all?
--
rjbs
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 10:57:39 -0400
From: Ricardo SIGNES [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RFE: regex backrefs
I know this has been brought up before, but I just thought I'd voice
my deep desire: mutt should be able to have backrefs to its regexen.
If I get a 'vote' in
* Ricardo SIGNES ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [01 Aug 2002 01:21]:
On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 05:08:25PM +0200, Roman Neuhauser wrote:
this reminds me: how hard would it be to make mutt use libpcre?
And, how much would it slow down / bloat up mutt, if at all?
Strictly speaking, if used as a shared
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 01:25:27 +1000
From: Iain Truskett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: RFE: regex backrefs
* Ricardo SIGNES ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [01 Aug 2002 01:21]:
On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 05:08:25PM +0200, Roman Neuhauser wrote:
this reminds me: how hard would
On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 05:54:42PM +0200, Roman Neuhauser wrote:
btw, vim's regex support is completely b0rken IMO. its (no) magic
switches... weird syntax... ugh.
Given that vim's regexes are based on vi's which are based on ed's,
and ed was the first UNIX program to *have* regexes,
* On 2002.07.31, in [EMAIL PROTECTED],
* Roman Neuhauser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Strictly speaking, if used as a shared library, and existing regexp
support is blown away and replaced, then it reduces bloat.
Not necessarily. I'm not already using pcre, so it still bloats my
system
Oops, I meant to reply to Roman's text, too, but my delete finger was
hyperactive.
* On 2002.07.31, in [EMAIL PROTECTED],
* Roman Neuhauser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
btw, vim's regex support is completely b0rken IMO. its (no) magic
switches... weird syntax... ugh.
What Mark
* Mark J. Reed ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [01 Aug 2002 02:05]:
[...]
Vim may not have modern innovations from Perl 5 like non-capturing
grouping, lookaround, etc., but it's hardly broken.
Actually, vim has non-capturing grouping and look-ahead/behind. And with
the various magic escapes, you can have
Ricardo SIGNES wrote:
I know this has been brought up before, but I just thought I'd voice my deep
desire: mutt should be able to have backrefs to its regexen. If I get a
'vote' in future development, this is how I would cast it. My C is crappy, or
I'd shut up and code it.
Imagine the
11 matches
Mail list logo