Hello Philip,
On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 10:31:41AM +0000, Philip Hazel wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Nov 2007, Stepan Kasal wrote:
> > So I wrote a patch which replaces PCRE_JCHANGED by PCRE_DUPNAMEUSED.
>
> I don't like replacing things. You always catch somebody. I see your
> point, but I'm not sure if it is actually worth doing anything about it.
> (I wasn't entire sure it was worth introducing the optimization in the
> first place, if I am entirely honest; [...]
ok, honesty for honesty:
When I finished my patch, I was almost sure it should be thrown away.
But I wasn't disciplined enough to do it myself and save your time.
When I started playing with PCRE_JCHANGED, I supposed it's an
internal thing; an optimization without any direct relation to the
specification.
> I do not like having undocumented ("hidden") features in software.
In this case, I would suppose it's an internal implementation detail,
which should not be published.
In any case, I realize now that you are right. The current code
should not be changed.
Thanks for your work,
Stepan Kasal
