On 3 December 2011 22:39, Francesco Riosa wrote:
> reading these two blogs:
> http://blog.rburchell.com/2011/12/why-i-avoid-qregexp-in-qt-4-and-so.html
> http://blogs.kde.org/node/4510 (Regexp library benchmarks...)
>
> I've learned of the TRE library (http://laurikari.net/tre/about/) it
> has int
>
>
> That would at the same time imply that anybody can add any regexp engine
> as an add-on to Qt, and we should be careful about the one we put into
> QtCore. I believe the most important points for inclusion into QtCore are
> speed, small footprint (RAM and ROM) and being reentrant. I am less
>
The benchmark numbers mentioned on
http://public.kitware.com/pipermail/cmake-developers/2011-November/002547.h
tml
is something we shouldn't simply ignore.
It sounds like Re2 is worth looking into. Do we have any information about
size and performance of that one?
In general we will need to allow
On Saturday, 3 de December de 2011 23.39.57, Francesco Riosa wrote:
> reading these two blogs:
> http://blog.rburchell.com/2011/12/why-i-avoid-qregexp-in-qt-4-and-so.html
> http://blogs.kde.org/node/4510 (Regexp library benchmarks...)
>
> I've learned of the TRE library (http://laurikari.net/tre/ab
reading these two blogs:
http://blog.rburchell.com/2011/12/why-i-avoid-qregexp-in-qt-4-and-so.html
http://blogs.kde.org/node/4510 (Regexp library benchmarks...)
I've learned of the TRE library (http://laurikari.net/tre/about/) it
has interesting functionality like fuzzy matching and seem to have a
