I am not advocating for PCRE in particular, I just need a regex engine that is just as powerful. I guess re2 serves that purpose, although I haven't used it myself (knowingly).
Looking at https://github.com/google/re2/wiki/WhyRE2 <https://github.com/google/re2/wiki/WhyRE2>, re2 actually seems to be a good target. "match time is linear in the length of the input string", sounds like a really nice property. > On 5 Feb 2019, at 12:26, Richard O'Keefe <rao...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Please DON'T move to PCRE. > "Outside world standards"? There are so many. > There are two important things to know about > PCRE: (1) it is a popular open source regexp > library for Perl-style regexps, (2) because of > that, it is prone to truly horrendous performance > problems. There are alternatives, such as re2, > https://github.com/google/re2 <https://github.com/google/re2> , > which are not subject to PCRE's intrinsic > performance pathologies. As it happens, re2 > supports *? +? and ??. > > On Tue, 5 Feb 2019 at 20:34, Esteban Lorenzano <esteba...@gmail.com > <mailto:esteba...@gmail.com>> wrote: > Hi, > > Yes, Pharo regex implementation is very naive. > We will be moving to a PCRE binding to match outside world standards but we > have not had the time to work on it :( > > Esteban > > > On 5 Feb 2019, at 00:27, Manuel Leuenberger <leuenber...@inf.unibe.ch > > <mailto:leuenber...@inf.unibe.ch>> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I just noticed that the Pharo regexes do not understand non-greedy matches. > > A regex engine to be PCRE is kind of essential, not having '.*?' to be a > > parseable and working regex is a bummer. Are there any more powerful regex > > engines around for Pharo? I could not find any. > > > > Cheers, > > Manuel > > > > > >
