pcre, bifs, drivers and ports
Thu Aug 3 16:26:22 CEST 2006
Robert Virding wrote:
> While the handling of "f**" in regexp is definitely a bug, which I
> suppose I should fix, it is definitely a legal regular expression. So
> that pcre will not even allow the regular expression is also a bug,
> the question is if it is the parsing of the expression or where?
> If you are as "cautious" as people working with cryptography you would
> start wondering if this is sign of a deeper malaise. :-)
> As the great Cato said: I still feel that calling the function grep is
> Could someone send a real problem to experiment on? Especially one
> which the current regexp module is definitely too slow on.
The reason I want pcre support, at least for my own personal sandbox, is
because of features that the regexp library lacks. Not because of
performance. Additionally, if there is a bug in pcre, chances are it
will be fixed more soon than a bug in the erlang regex module(aside from
just doing the work myself, which is fine I guess). Also the reason I
asked about bifs and drivers is to solicit feedback from the list as to
what the best way to implement a binding into the pcre library and what
the drawbacks were of each implementation.
I think this is a good discussion, not sure what everyone else thinks.
Especially to show that erl bifs are fairly easy to implement, and the
constraints that their implementation should adhere to.
More information about the erlang-questions