On Tue, 2003-02-04 at 18:21, Tom Lane wrote: > 4. pcre looks like it's probably *not* as well suited to a multibyte > environment. In particular, I doubt that its UTF8 compile option was > even turned on for the performance comparison Neil cited --- and the man > page only promises "experimental, incomplete support for UTF-8 encoded > strings". The Tcl code by contrast is used only in a multibyte > environment, so that's the supported, optimized path. It doesn't even > assume null-terminated strings (yay).
If we are going into code-lifting business, we should also consider Pythons sre (a modified pcre, that works both on 8-bit and python's unicode (either 16 or 32 byte chars, depending on compile options)) It has no specific support for "raw" utf-8 or other variable-width encodings. -- Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
