Re: g_regex in glib 1.3

["Timur I. Bakeyev" <gtk listserv bat ru>]

On Thu, Dec 30, 1999 at 11:49:23AM -0500, Joel Becker wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 29, 1999 at 06:22:06PM -0500, Owen Taylor wrote:
> > My opinion is:
> >  - Perl regular expressions would be nice
> >  - We _cannot_ have multiple flavors of regular expression depending
> >    on the way GLib is compiled. It has to be perl-style and always
> >    perl-style or POSIX and always POSIX.
> 
> > What I told him (I wish I could remember who "him" was), was that 
> > it would be best to simply use the official version of pcre, but
> > if it isn't (and he seemed to think it wasn't) and we were going
> > to include a copy of pcre, then we needed to make sure we renamed
> > any exported functions to avoid conflicting with pcre.

I also vote for PCRE, as it is quick, nice and convinient. Also, there is a
POSIX wrapper, so, in case we'll nee POSIX-compatability it is there.

Still, I don't think we should branch PCRE and g_regexp. Problems with sync-
ronizing the code, function's names clashing...

I suggest to chaise Philip Hazel(?) to include all necessary parts into his 
distribution (mainly, pcre.m4 and configure). That will make things nice and
clean:) I've already contact Phil and he agreed, that some sort of configure
will be nice. So, we should prove, that our is the best :> Also, he afraid to
switch completely to configure style, as PCRE is multiplatform and supposed to
be able to compile on Windows and Macs...

Besides that reasons it is possible to have suitable for our needs PCRE distri-
bution.
> 
> 	"him" was happybob (scottw@cgibuilder.com).  No, I can't remember

http://dev.cgibuilder.com/scottw/code/

> his last name.  Personally, I would not want glib to have any external
> dependancies other than libc, so I would vote for an included version of
> pcre.  This would require a rename of all of pcre's functions, lest an
> overzealous dynamic linker get pcre-only functions from glib, and not
> libpcre.  Unless, of course, someone has a creative way to make the
> linker ignore included pcre api in the libglib .so.
> 
> > The API for a regular expression addition to GLib certainly has
> > not been finalized at this point.
> 
> 	We agree we want it, but with this lack of finality, is it a 1.3
> issue or a 1.[59] issue?

Look at the URL - seems, Scott Wilmer (at last name sound:) thinks, that it is
finished. Let contact him. As usual, I'll fix pcre to the 2.08 state.

> 
> Joel
> 
With best regards,
Timur Bakeyev.