Nikolai,
As you might know, the reg_comp() method is called twice when compiling
a r.e; first to determine the size of the compiled expression and then
to actually compile it. I was thinking if this can be used to our
advantage, while on the first pass, we look for occurrences of special
On 3/22/07, Asiri Rathnayake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As you might know, the reg_comp() method is called twice when compiling
a r.e; first to determine the size of the compiled expression and then
to actually compile it. I was thinking if this can be used to our
advantage, while on the first
On Thu, 2007-03-22 at 09:26 +0100, Nikolai Weibull wrote:
On 3/22/07, Asiri Rathnayake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As you might know, the reg_comp() method is called twice when compiling
a r.e; first to determine the size of the compiled expression and then
to actually compile it. I was
Nikolai Weibull wrote:
On 3/22/07, Asiri Rathnayake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As you might know, the reg_comp() method is called twice when compiling
a r.e; first to determine the size of the compiled expression and then
to actually compile it. I was thinking if this can be used to our
On Thu, 2007-03-22 at 22:21 +0100, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
Adding a third matcher won't happen soon, and is a big change. It's not
really needed to prepare for that.
The disadvantage of using a function pointer is that in the place where
it's used you only see:
This mail bounced off for some reason, I'm repeating it. Sorry if you've
already got this.
-
Hi Bram, Nikolai, All,
I think the best way to understand current implementation of regxp is to
first go through Henry Spencer's original regxp implementation ( thanks
nikolai ). It's
Hi Bram,Nikolai,
I went through the regxp code and have a few questions...
First, Why use this kind of a coding scheme and encode patterns rather
than using a state diagram ? ( Performance/Memory ? ). Secondly, is it a
requirement that the new implementation has to follow the same method ?
I
On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 11:55 +0100, Nikolai Weibull wrote:
On 3/19/07, Asiri Rathnayake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Bram, Nicolai,
A 'k' would be greatly appreciated.
I'm really really sorry, won't happen again...
I'm unable to grasp the description ( attachment ) given in the regxp.c
On 1/1/07, Asiri Rathnayake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 11:55 +0100, Nikolai Weibull wrote:
On 3/19/07, Asiri Rathnayake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Bram, Nicolai,
A 'k' would be greatly appreciated.
I'm really really sorry, won't happen again...
Hehe, don't take it
On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 01:49:53PM +0100, Nikolai Weibull wrote:
On 1/1/07, Asiri Rathnayake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 11:55 +0100, Nikolai Weibull wrote:
On 3/19/07, Asiri Rathnayake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Bram, Nicolai,
A 'k' would be greatly appreciated.
10 matches
Mail list logo