* On 2002.08.02, in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, * "Calum Selkirk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > if mutt could be ./configure'd --with-pcre (nondefault, of course), > > > there'd be virtually no problems with confusion between regexps > > > found in various published .muttrc's and the syntax mutt linked with > > > pcre actually expected. > > > > assuming this is true - who would > > (1) prepare the transition? > > (2) write the patches? > > (3) write the documentation? > > (4) update the setup files? > > any takers? > > Sven, > > "if" is generally regarded as a conditional and is never in and of > itself "true" but predicated on meeting certain conditions (in this > case 1,2,3,4)
"If it is true that a hypothetical mutt executable linked with libpcre causes virtually no problems with confusion...." To add to your list of questions: What's the trouble here? Why am I defending Sven, and what does this say about your posting? Anyway, I don't think it's particularly true. We already have had clashes where someone (generally a Linux user) posts GNU-compatible regexes that are not EREs, and someone else using standard EREs cannot use the macro, limit, or whatever, and must post again asking for explication, debugging, whatever, and it takes a few iterations to figure out the trouble. This would only get worse once one can enable PCREs. I'm not judging whether that's okay, just predicting that it will happen. -- -D. Fresh fruit enriches everyone. Takes the thirst Sun Project, APC/UCCO out of everyday time. A pure whiff of oxygen, University of Chicago painting over a monochrome world in primary colors. [EMAIL PROTECTED] We all know that. It's why everyone loves fruit.
