Re: [boost] Re: Re: Re: Regexp code bloat

From: Miroslav Silovic (miro_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-28 06:15:13

Eugene Lazutkin wrote:

>>Note, that this is not an argument against refactoring regex++ (if
>>that is needed and doable), but just an argument for putting
>>executable size in its place along with all the other factors in
>>software development.
>>    
>>
>
>I agree. But truly universal libraries should take in consideration as many
>factors as possible. That is what I am trying to say.
>
>  
>
Just to add more to this: For simple tasks, there already are C regexp 
libraries, and they're small, well-tested (as close to bug-free as 
you'll get) and *fast*. Their size overhead is exactly 0, since they 
come with the system, and share standard (POSIX) API. And they're not 
that difficult to just call on any given a_string.c_str(). For complex 
tasks, now we have Spirit, which expands fairly light-weight parsers, 
and it may interact with runtime (thanks to its runtime 
parametrisation). So regex++ niche seems to be... what, exactly?

    Miro