[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: extended rx.el
From: |
Stefan Monnier |
Subject: |
Re: extended rx.el |
Date: |
28 Apr 2004 09:44:49 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3.50 |
> But you said that's false! \(?:foo\) normally isn't slower.
It's in any case marginally slower for the simple reason that it takes more
time to compile the regexp to its bytecode form.
> The issue is whether when generating regexps a la Rx, for instance,
> you worry about extra groups and expend effort eliminating them (as Rx
> already does, actually).
And I think the answer is that it should try to avoid using them
when possible.
> It would be useful to have the info _somewhere_ anyway -- regex.c is far
> from transparent, I guess especially if you don't know/remember your
> theory. (I don't mean that's surprising or a problem, of course.)
Yes, the should be a blurb at the beginning of regex.c discussing the
performance of the code.
I don't have time to write that now,
Stefan
Re: extended rx.el, Richard Stallman, 2004/04/24
- Re: extended rx.el, Dave Love, 2004/04/26
- Re: extended rx.el, Richard Stallman, 2004/04/27
- Re: extended rx.el, Dave Love, 2004/04/29
- Re: extended rx.el, Stefan Monnier, 2004/04/29
- Re: extended rx.el, Richard Stallman, 2004/04/30