On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 03:57:13PM -0700, Michael Elkins wrote:
>
> While this might look simple, it's more difficult to implement than you
> might think. Why? Becuse the regexp here is not just one regular
No, I know how difficult it is. ;)
> At any rate, your example above can be solved as
On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 10:57:39AM -0400, Ricardo SIGNES wrote:
> I know this has been brought up before, but I just thought I'd voice my deep
> desire: mutt should be able to have backrefs to its regexen. If I get a
> 'vote' in future development, this is how I would cast it. My C is crappy, o
Ricardo SIGNES wrote:
> I know this has been brought up before, but I just thought I'd voice my deep
> desire: mutt should be able to have backrefs to its regexen. If I get a
> 'vote' in future development, this is how I would cast it. My C is crappy, or
> I'd shut up and code it.
>
> Imagine
* Mark J. Reed ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [01 Aug 2002 02:05]:
[...]
> Vim may not have modern innovations from Perl 5 like non-capturing
> grouping, lookaround, etc., but it's hardly "broken".
Actually, vim has non-capturing grouping and look-ahead/behind. And with
the various magic escapes, you can h
Oops, I meant to reply to Roman's text, too, but my delete finger was
hyperactive.
* On 2002.07.31, in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
* "Roman Neuhauser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> btw, vim's regex support is completely b0rken IMO. its (no) magic
> switches... weird syntax... ugh.
Wha
* On 2002.07.31, in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
* "Roman Neuhauser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Strictly speaking, if used as a shared library, and existing regexp
> > support is blown away and replaced, then it reduces bloat.
Not necessarily. I'm not already using pcre, so it still bloats
On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 05:54:42PM +0200, Roman Neuhauser wrote:
> btw, vim's regex support is completely b0rken IMO. its (no) magic
> switches... weird syntax... ugh.
Given that vim's regexes are based on vi's which are based on ed's,
and ed was the first UNIX program to *have* regexes, i
> Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 01:25:27 +1000
> From: Iain Truskett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: RFE: regex backrefs
>
> * Ricardo SIGNES ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [01 Aug 2002 01:21]:
> > On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 05:08:25PM +0200, Roman Neuhause
* Ricardo SIGNES ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [01 Aug 2002 01:21]:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 05:08:25PM +0200, Roman Neuhauser wrote:
> > this reminds me: how hard would it be to make mutt use libpcre?
> And, how much would it slow down / bloat up mutt, if at all?
Strictly speaking, if used as a shared l
> Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 10:57:39 -0400
> From: Ricardo SIGNES <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RFE: regex backrefs
>
> I know this has been brought up before, but I just thought I'd voice
> my deep desire: mutt should be able to have backr
On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 05:08:25PM +0200, Roman Neuhauser wrote:
> > my deep desire: mutt should be able to have backrefs to its regexen.
>
> this reminds me: how hard would it be to make mutt use libpcre?
And, how much would it slow down / bloat up mutt, if at all?
--
rjbs
msg29997/pg
I know this has been brought up before, but I just thought I'd voice my deep
desire: mutt should be able to have backrefs to its regexen. If I get a
'vote' in future development, this is how I would cast it. My C is crappy, or
I'd shut up and code it.
Imagine the power available in something a
12 matches
Mail list logo
