On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 17:31:15 -0800, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 04:08:38AM +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Hmm, that extra argument is used only if you've compiled perl with > > TRIE_DEBUG > > (for which you have to patch the source), and are running with -Dr - that > > seems like an unreasonable price for everyone else to pay. > > I'd like to see TRIE_DEBUG enabled by -Drv (along with any other regex > optimization debug stuff that may come up later). I don't see any need > to allow "use re 'debug_verbose'", though.
I thought a bit about making C<use re 'debug_trie';> work out but it seemed like a big job for litte return given my current TRIE tasklist. I dont know right now how -Drv works though, but maybe it would be better. Ill have to look at how that stuff is handled. (Pointers welcome :-) > > :- PerlIO_printf(Perl_debug_log, "%sCompiling REx%s `%s%*s%s'\n", > > :+ PerlIO_printf(Perl_debug_log, "%sCompiling REx%s \"%s%*s%s\"\n", > > [...] > > :- "%sFreeing REx:%s `%s%*.*s%s%s'\n", > > :+ "%sFreeing REx:%s %s%*.*s%s%s\n", > > > > Hmm, I hope you checked no-one is trying to parse that output ... > > I think anyone doing something like parsing regex debug output should > expect that they may need to make changes for new .0 releases, if not > even more often. Yeah my thoughts exactly. If they are parsing the debug output the pattern is going to be the least of their problems as the new regops will have to be dealt with as well. Cheers, Yves -- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. +Gandhi
