On Tuesday, 17 de January de 2012 15.15.15, Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote: > 2012/1/17 Thiago Macieira <thiago.macie...@intel.com>: > > On Tuesday, 17 de January de 2012 02.43.33, Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote: > >> 1) Support for more pattern options and match options. Right now you > >> can see them commented in the .h (and there's no code for them), but > >> adding them is trivial. Any opinions for just enabling them or only > >> some? In particular, InvertedGreedinessOption for giving a (more or > >> less) direct replacement of QRegExp::setMinimal, and > >> AllowDuplicatedNamesOption (see the next point) for duplicated names > >> in named capturing groups. > > > > Call it NonGreedyOption and I think that should be enabled. > > The name InvertedGreedinessOption came from the fact that it inverts > the greediness of the quantifiers: * becomes ungreedy, *? becomes > greedy (the same applies for all other quantifiers). I'll add it > though.
Keep it as InvertedGreedinessOption then. I thought it only affected * by
making it be like *?.
> > UseUnicodePropertiesOption: can we reduce the size of the library in
> > certain scenarios if we don't have this option?
>
> I don't think so, I think we still need PCRE to have its Unicode
> tables for having case insensitive matches.
If there's no gain, then we should let it in.
What does this option cause the engine to do?
> > DontCaptureOption: is this a memory saving mechanism? What else does it
> > do,
> > besides making the capture groups return empty or invalid? If it's just a
> > memory saving option, I'd say let it in.
>
> It simply disables the non-named capturing groups, so they simply
> group but not capture substrings any more. Named capturing groups
> still work, though. I see it as both an optimizer and syntactic sugar,
> avoiding you to write lots of (?:...) groups if you don't really need
> to capture anything but only group.
But what's the benefit? I've done a lot of () grouping without the "?:" sugar
to make it not capture. Does it make the matching happen faster? I doubt it.
Does it give a memory benefit by not capturing?
> > MatchFirstLineOnlyOption and DollarMatchesOnlyAtEndOption: I can't tell
> > from the name only. How do they interact with the MultilineOption? My
> > guess is to leave them out for now. We can always introduce them later.
>
> Great.
But how do they interact with the MultilineOption? Maybe that will affect the
option that is there.
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
Intel Sweden AB - Registration Number: 556189-6027
Knarrarnäsgatan 15, 164 40 Kista, Stockholm, Sweden
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
