On Wednesday 26 February 2003 01:57 pm, A.M. Kuchling wrote: > Gary Herron wrote: > > What to do about RE's that hit the recursion limit? > > I haven't had a chance to look at the SRE code in detail yet, but expect > that the problem is that the straightforward way to implement .*? is > with a C function call. PCRE also implemented it with a function call; > Python avoided the limit by forking PCRE and adding a heap-allocated > stack and pushing states onto the stack instead of recursing, which is > why pre avoids the > recursion limit (well, until you fill up your entire heap). > > The problem is that the patches to do this were extensive and ugly. > Maybe just fixing the problem for .* will be sufficient. Actually .* does not seem to have this recursion problem, only .*? -- I don't yet know why. > Incidentally, before we go making lots of changes, has anyone actually > pinged Fredrik about the SRE code? His usual approach with software is > to process patches and TODO items every N months; maybe he just hasn't > gotten around to looking at the SRE backlog? I sent a copy of my original post to him. I've had no response yet, but it's been less than a day. Gary Herron
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4