From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sam Vilain Subject: Re: [PATCH] Interpret :/ as a regular expression Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 21:07:40 +1200 Message-ID: <4671055C.4050609@vilain.net> References: <20070613184109.GG10941@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20070613200011.GA17360@coredump.intra.peff.net> <4670F2BB.5060909@vilain.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Johannes Schindelin X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Jun 14 11:08:08 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HylJG-0001Cm-Oa for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Thu, 14 Jun 2007 11:08:07 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751016AbXFNJIA (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jun 2007 05:08:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751142AbXFNJIA (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jun 2007 05:08:00 -0400 Received: from watts.utsl.gen.nz ([202.78.240.73]:49718 "EHLO magnus.utsl.gen.nz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751015AbXFNJIA (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jun 2007 05:08:00 -0400 Received: by magnus.utsl.gen.nz (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 589A513A4FA; Thu, 14 Jun 2007 21:07:57 +1200 (NZST) Received: from [192.168.1.5] (203-97-235-49.cable.telstraclear.net [203.97.235.49]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by magnus.utsl.gen.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 841AB13A4F0; Thu, 14 Jun 2007 21:07:52 +1200 (NZST) User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (X11/20060615) In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.0.0 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on mail.magnus.utsl.gen.nz X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.4 required=5.0 tests=SPF_HELO_FAIL autolearn=no version=3.0.2 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Johannes Schindelin wrote: >> A strange thing to conclude from your figures, which show pcre as the >> fastest out of several libraries that you tested. >> > > The best of the worse. Yes. An external (!) program was 4x faster than > pcre. I don't know how to make it more obvious that pcre sucks. > Oh, your position is obvious enough, but it is correct and supportable by the available evidence? Why not read past the first paragraph of my post and reply to that. Sam.