> 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 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 library, and existing regexp
> support is blown away and replaced, then it reduces bloat.
>
> The problem is, such a change would probably kill everyone's existing
> configurations. You'd need something like Vim's \m, \M, \v, \V escapes
> (magic, no magic, very magic, very no magic), only probably \P (use
> PCRE; assuming \P isn't taken by PCRE).
while i very much appreciate the fact that i can use 1.5 with
.muttrc created for 1.2.5i (i think only noted one or two non-bugfix
changes between 1.2.5i and 1.5.1i), such changes are what major
version number bumps are for.
btw, vim's regex support is completely b0rken IMO. its (no) magic
switches... weird syntax... ugh.
if PCRE was adopted, and used as the only regex library in the next
major mutt version, such an escape wouldn't be needed.
anyway, PCRE is quite ubiquitous (apache 2, postfix, python,
php...), and a de facto standard. standards are goooooooood.
--
FreeBSD 4.6-STABLE
5:40PM up 1 day, 1:17, 7 users, load averages: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
