Re: Question about some fields in regex's re_pattern_buffer

[Reuben Thomas]

On 18 August 2010 12:51, Paolo Bonzini <address@hidden> wrote:
> We have been very strict in adding extensions to the POSIX APIs
> (basically only REG_STARTEND).

Right, whereas in other parts of the GNU APIs there are rather more
liberal additions (just grep the man pages for _GNU_SOURCE). What's
the reason not to make more GNU extensions to the POSIX APIs
(including new functions that work with the existing POSIX functions,
not just changes to the semantics of existing calls), rather than
updating an API that is much less widely used than either POSIX or
PCRE? Keeping two regex APIs alive indefinitely in GNU seems rather
perverse...

> Adding syntax bits to PCRE would be nice indeed, but then PCRE
> does not guarantee POSIX leftmost-longest matching like GNU
> regex does.

Sure, pretty much every different regex library lacks features that others have.

-- 
http://rrt.sc3d.org