On Tue, 18 Jun 2013, Axb wrote:
On 06/18/2013 07:24 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jun 2013, Amir 'CG' Caspi wrote:
> At 10:13 AM -0700 06/18/2013, John Hardin wrote:
> > On Mon, 17 Jun 2013, Amir 'CG' Caspi wrote:
> > > Any idea why it failed to hit, and does this need another rule
> > revision?
> >
> > Yep, and yep. Revision committed. Initial comment gibberish rule
> > committed.
>
> Thanks for the revision. Do you want to explain why it failed and how
> you fixed it? =)
The earlier version wasn't allowing for some punctuation in the
gibberish. There may be a period of whack-a-mole here, I was
conservative in the change I made.
hope this is nopublish atm
rules like this can be a perfomance hog.
Yes, they can be. These rules avoid unbounded repetition, alternation and
situations where backtracking is likely to occur, and are firmly anchored,
so I think they are not likely to exhibit performance problems.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZ http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhar...@impsec.org FALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhar...@impsec.org
key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
So Microsoft's invented the ASCII equivalent to ugly ink spots that
appear on your letter when your pen is malfunctioning.
-- Greg Andrews, about Microsoft's way to encode apostrophes
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Today: SWMBO's Birthday
