On 14.03.2012 0:54, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 11:27:57PM +0400, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
For a couple of releases we have a new revamped std.regex, that as
far as I'm concerned works nicely, thanks to my GSOC commitment last
summer. Yet there was certain dark trend around std.rege
On 14.03.2012 0:32, Brad Anderson wrote:
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Dmitry Olshansky mailto:dmitry.o...@gmail.com>> wrote:
For a couple of releases we have a new revamped std.regex, that as
far as I'm concerned works nicely, thanks to my GSOC commitment last
summer. Yet there w
On 14.03.2012 0:54, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 11:27:57PM +0400, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
For a couple of releases we have a new revamped std.regex, that as
far as I'm concerned works nicely, thanks to my GSOC commitment last
summer. Yet there was certain dark trend around std.rege
On 14.03.2012 0:32, Brad Anderson wrote:
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Dmitry Olshansky mailto:dmitry.o...@gmail.com>> wrote:
For a couple of releases we have a new revamped std.regex, that as
far as I'm concerned works nicely, thanks to my GSOC commitment last
summer. Yet there w
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 11:27:57PM +0400, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
> For a couple of releases we have a new revamped std.regex, that as
> far as I'm concerned works nicely, thanks to my GSOC commitment last
> summer. Yet there was certain dark trend around std.regex/std.regexp
> as both had severe b
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
> For a couple of releases we have a new revamped std.regex, that as far as
> I'm concerned works nicely, thanks to my GSOC commitment last summer. Yet
> there was certain dark trend around std.regex/std.regexp as both had severe
> bugs, mis
On 14.03.2012 0:05, bearophile wrote:
Dmitry Olshansky:
It's about time to break this gloomy aura, and show that std.regex is
actually easy to use, that it does the thing and has some nice extras.
This seems a good moment to ask people regarding this small problem, that we
have already discu
On Tuesday, 13 March 2012 at 19:27:59 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
For a couple of releases we have a new revamped std.regex, that
as far as I'm concerned works nicely, thanks to my GSOC
commitment last summer. Yet there was certain dark trend around
std.regex/std.regexp as both had severe bugs
Dmitry Olshansky:
> It's about time to break this gloomy aura, and show that std.regex is
> actually easy to use, that it does the thing and has some nice extras.
This seems a good moment to ask people regarding this small problem, that we
have already discussed a little in Bugizilla (there is
On 13.03.2012 23:42, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Dmitry Olshansky" wrote in message
news:jjo73v$4gv$1...@digitalmars.com...
For a couple of releases we have a new revamped std.regex, that as far as
I'm concerned works nicely, thanks to my GSOC commitment last summer. Yet
there was certain dark tren
"Dmitry Olshansky" wrote in message
news:jjo73v$4gv$1...@digitalmars.com...
> For a couple of releases we have a new revamped std.regex, that as far as
> I'm concerned works nicely, thanks to my GSOC commitment last summer. Yet
> there was certain dark trend around std.regex/std.regexp as both
On 3/13/12 2:27 PM, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
For a couple of releases we have a new revamped std.regex, that as far
as I'm concerned works nicely, thanks to my GSOC commitment last summer.
Yet there was certain dark trend around std.regex/std.regexp as both had
severe bugs, missing documentation a
For a couple of releases we have a new revamped std.regex, that as far
as I'm concerned works nicely, thanks to my GSOC commitment last summer.
Yet there was certain dark trend around std.regex/std.regexp as both had
severe bugs, missing documentation and what not, enough to consider them
unusa
13 matches
Mail list logo
