> > There's a single case of single recursion, that's why it can't be 1: > > when SRE_COUNT() is called from the main loop, and then it calls > > SRE_MATCH() again. OTOH, this second call of SRE_MATCH() will *never* > > recurse again, unless there's a serious bug in the expression compiler > > (which is not the case right now). > > I see. So there is a guarantee that level will never be larger than 2? Yep. > > USE_RECURSION_LIMIT is a friend of USE_RECURSION. We have already > > discussed this in other messages. > > Maybe we have, but it was not clear to me. It even still isn't: > Wouldn't it be possible to leave USE_RECURSION in, and remove > USE_RECURSION_LIMIT, and the level argument? Of course we can. It depends totally on what we want to do. We can remove it, and then if we enable USE_RECURSION, it may blow up the stack without being catched. > I was relying on your credibility, so I was surprised that you are > interested to leave the old code in - that suggests that you feel > there are problems with your code. I'm trying to find out what you > think these problems are. I don't think there are problems. > However, getting all trust in the SRE code from the trust that I have > in you is not enough for me - and, PLEASE UNDERSTAND, this has nothing > to do with you personally. I feel bad if important code is so > unmaintainable that only a single person understands it. I made the > remark as a comment to you saying > > "let's please wait a little bit to see the new code working?" > > which suggested that we actually have to *see* how the code works, in > order to determine whether it works. It's the first time in my entire life I'm being blamed for being careful. -- Gustavo Niemeyer http://niemeyer.net
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