Request for review: Grepview plugin rewrite

[Andreas Pakulat]

On 28.08.10 16:39:24, Syron wrote:
> 
> >That only shows that there's no significant difference between QRegExp
> >and pcre. a 16second difference in 220 seconds is not that much. Neither
> >is the 5 second difference in 31 total.
> I forgot to mention that the search for the files is included in the
> timings, which took 10-15s, so there _is_ actually a difference for
> complex regexps.

But that applies to both no?

> Despite of that, pcre also supports more character sets like
> [[:alnum:]] and other useful sequences, which, IMHO, is another
> reason to use pcre.

Ok, how often do you use that (I know I use character sets rather
seldomly, most of the time its a simple string or a string with simple
whitespace or .* stuff)? 

> >Thats actually wrong. At lesat Java allows to use various unicode ranges
> >in identifiers and I bet you can find more languages. Also KDevelop is
> >not the only user of KDevPlatform, there's at least quanta too which
> >often has lots and lots of human-readable text to grep through.
> OK, that's a point against pcre. I'm thinking about to have the user decide which engine he wants to use.

We really don't need 2 regexp engines for find-in-files and an option to
choose between them. We as developers should select one that suits our
needs. So far I've seen no compelling reason for pcre, but at least 1
downside (besides the new dependency for us).

Andreas

-- 
Troubled day for virgins over 16 who are beautiful and wealthy and live
in eucalyptus trees.