Re: s/rx.ops// ?

Will Coleda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What's the plan for the regular expression ops, given PGE? As the guy who wrote them, I think at this point that they're basically unsalvageable, save the intstacks and *maybe* the bitmap handling code. -- Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Perl

s/rx.ops// ?

What's the plan for the regular expression ops, given PGE? (Apologies if I've missed an earlier ruling: Just trying to clean some stuff in RT & roadmap)

Re: error in rx.ops example

Stéphane Payrard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > rx_popindex signature is incorrect in the pre-patch example. > - rx_popindex S0, I1, $advance > + rx_popindex I1, $advance Thanks, changed. leo

error in rx.ops example

rx_popindex signature is incorrect in the pre-patch example. --- rx.ops.old 2003-06-06 18:27:00.0 +0200 +++ rx.ops 2003-10-20 23:08:24.0 +0200 @@ -108,7 +108,7 @@ rx_literal S0, I1, "b", $next branch $top

Re: rx.ops

Brent Dax wrote: > Honestly, though, I'm no longer sure the full regex engine is a good idea. > A fast index op, a fast ord op, a character class op, and the intstack is > really all that's needed to make a regex engine from plain Parrot opcodes. I agree with you on one level. That is enough to m

Re: rx.ops

Benjamin Goldberg: > Since I don't see anything to save/restore the instack on subroutine > calls, I am wondering what happens if a regex has a (?{ CODE }), and > that CODE calls a regex. Are we garunteed that after a regex completes > (either succeeds or fails) that the intstack is in the same st

rx.ops

Since I don't see anything to save/restore the instack on subroutine calls, I am wondering what happens if a regex has a (?{ CODE }), and that CODE calls a regex. Are we garunteed that after a regex completes (either succeeds or fails) that the intstack is in the same state it started? If not (a

Re: [PATCH] typos in rx.ops

On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 02:05:22PM -0500, Simon Glover wrote: > > On Thu, 3 Apr 2003, Cal Henderson wrote: > > > patch to correct typos in rx.ops > > Thanks, applied. There's more: Index: rx.ops === RC

Re: [PATCH] typos in rx.ops

On Thu, 3 Apr 2003, Cal Henderson wrote: > patch to correct typos in rx.ops > > patch follows sig > Thanks, applied. Simon

[PATCH] typos in rx.ops

patch to correct typos in rx.ops patch follows sig -cal -- --- rx.ops Thu Jan 9 00:00:17 2003 +++ rx.ops.2Wed Apr 2 23:28:13 2003 @@ -135,11 +135,11 @@ There are two basic rules to how the opcodes operate. -The first rule is that the first argument to each opcode is the string

Re: [perl #19807] [PATCH] rx.ops doc typos

At 10:09 PM + 1/7/03, Jim Radford (via RT) wrote: I found a few typos while reading through the documentation in rx.ops. Applied, thanks. -- Dan --"it's like this"-

[perl #19807] [PATCH] rx.ops doc typos

# New Ticket Created by Jim Radford # Please include the string: [perl #19807] # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue. # http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=19807 > I found a few typos while reading through the documentation in rx.ops. -Jim --- par

Re: rx.ops, bitmaps and memory leaks

Brent Dax wrote: > Leopold Toetsch: > # 2) For bitmaps I would provide a bitlist.c with functions for setting > # and testing bits. This bitlist would be based on list, so it > # should be > # fast enough and had no limits WRT unicode chars. > > Note that the "Bitmaps" used by rx are only bitmaps

RE: rx.ops, bitmaps and memory leaks

Leopold Toetsch: # 2) For bitmaps I would provide a bitlist.c with functions for setting # and testing bits. This bitlist would be based on list, so it # should be # fast enough and had no limits WRT unicode chars. Note that the "Bitmaps" used by rx are only bitmaps within US-ASCII, to keep siz

rx.ops, bitmaps and memory leaks

Rx had some time ago (~0.0.6) a state structure rxinfo. AFAIK this was tossed for speed reasons, state is kept in registers now. This has several impacts: - regexen are not reentrant anymore (global intstack) - they don't/can't manage their allocated resources like bitmaps 1) I would propose, tha

[PATCH] Tiny de-typo in rx.ops documentation

Should be self-explanatory. Simon --- rx.ops.old Sun Mar 10 12:54:51 2002 +++ rx.ops Sun Mar 10 12:55:18 2002 @@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ # NOTE: This looks a LOT scarier than it really is # "zzabbBBcdcdcdzz" =~ /ab*[cd]+/i - rx_alloc