Re: perl regexp's and stk - that was easy

From: Brian Denheyer <briand_at_deldotd.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 14:49:06 -0800 (PST)

>>>>> "Erick" == Erick Gallesio <eg_at_unice.fr> writes:

    Erick> Brian Denheyer writes:
>>
>> I got the pcre 2.04 library and hooked it in as a dynamically loadable
>> module. The pcre package is very nice with lots of goodies which are
>> found in perl.

    Erick> PCRE is on my list of TODO things since Xmas. An d
    Erick> that's true that it seems a nice package. I have not tried to
    Erick> benchmark it btw. Do you have (or someone on the list)? tried to see
    Erick> how efficient is this implementation.

Well you can take it off your list of things TODO :-)

If someone can suggest the proper way to benchmark pattern matching I
will be happy to do it. The way it is set-up right now I can easily
run side-by-side comparisons.

    Erick> - The TODO list of Tcl said that they want a perl
    Erick> compatible regexp package for Tk 8.1. Since I was happy
    Erick> with the performances of the Henry Spencer (and since I
    Erick> know that his package has also evolved) I thought that it
    Erick> would be fine to continue with the Tcl stuff. I had a look
    Erick> to the current beta version of the Tcl today. This was a
    Erick> quick look and this is not a definitive advice but the code
    Erick> seems complicated and not very pretty (e.g. C code which
    Erick> include other C files...). A lot of complexity seems to
    Erick> come from Unicode. Anyway, PCRE seems better packaged than
    Erick> it.

And it's very easy to add !

    Erick> - The copyright of PCRE is not clear. The package
    Erick> seems to have a liberal license but I don't understand the

As you say the license is liberal, but if you mix it with GPL code and
it conflicts with the GPL, the GPL "wins". What specifically are you
concerned with ?

Brian
Received on Wed Feb 24 1999 - 23:49:46 CET