On Tuesday, June 11, 2013 2:50:12 PM UTC-5, glts wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 5:18 PM, Ben Fritz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > That pattern contains a few patterns using \@<! which can only match one or
> > two characters before. They should probably be explicitly limited like
> > \@2<!. I think performance of patterns like this is the reason the
> > byte-limiting behavior was added.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Bram Moolenaar <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Note that this Ruby syntax is just using very expensive patterns, it's
>
> > more a problem of the syntax than of the regexp engine.
>
>
>
> I wonder if it is wise to require syntax files to use the byte limits.
>
> The new syntax files will then no longer work on older versions of Vim,
>
> will they? This may be ok for runtime files but what about the many
>
> independently maintained syntax plugins on vim.org and elsewhere ...
I think "encourage" is a better word. For runtime files certainly that is best.
Independent files can always check for the Vim version/patch level and define
an alternate pattern that risks being slower when byte limits are not
supported. I think I even saw a patch to make that possible with a single has()
check instead of the current overly verbose v:version>703 || v:version==703 &&
has('patch_string') method.
--
--
You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"vim_dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
