On September 8, 2002 09:48, Leon Brooks wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Sep 2002 13:42, Joel Mawhorter wrote:
> > If any of you can think of an example of something that you do
> > with the current regular expression searching that won't be possible with
> > what I described above, please let me know.
>
> All verses containing two or more of God, Good or Greed: (g[ore]*d){2,}Do you actually do this? I can think of many examples of searches I could do with regexps that I couldn't do with the functionality I am proposing. However, I can't think of any examples that I would actually use for any practical purpose. Since I am not going to remove or change the current regexp functionality all I really care about is whether there is some way I could extend what I am proposing to cover things that people currently do with regexp since regexp will not (and probably can not) get an speed boost but the new searching will be much faster. > It's true that most people can't be bothered learning regex, but I think > losing it would be a Bad Idea. If you're after speed improvements, do a > plaintext/indexed search up to the first special character before handing > over to regex proper. Be aware that regex libraries are sufficient > efficient these days that you might not see any improvement, depending on > how much indexing you get to use (by way of reducing the search space) on > the way in. Never fear, I'm only adding, not taking away :-). Joel > Cheers; Leon
