Ok, I found this message on the list
from 2 years ago.
My questions are:
1. Is there any interest in doing all the work to get
PCRE in there? Or is that not really a priority right
2. In your reply (in 2004), you write, "Another idea is to use
a real interpreted language for highlighting (and other things
in JOE)." Any real interest in that? What sort of interpreted
language would be suitable?
2.a. Would an embedded interpreted language (a so-called
"macro language", right?) obviate the need for PCRE?
My guess is that if an intrepreted language supported
regex's, it would simply use the PCRE lib instead of
rolling their own. :)
3. Is bloat a concern? JOE is already pretty darn small.
Could it stand to put on just a little weight?
--- Joseph H Allen <jhallen@...> wrote:
> It's on the list- you are not the first person to ask.
> "John M. Gabriele" <john_sips_tea@...> wrote:
> >I was just reading the man page and was a bit surprised
> >to find that JOE doesn't seem to use the usual regular
> >expression syntax I'm used to (Perl, Python, Java, etc.
> >style) but rather seems to use what looks like an older-
> >style regex syntax with some globs thrown in.
> >Can JOE make use of something like PCRE
> >http://www.pcre.org/ ?
> >I'm guessing many folks use Joe for editing Perl or Python,
> >and going back and forth between two different syntaxes
> >seems like it's going to lead to a fair amount of typos.
> >Joe, are you married to the idea of keeping your own custom
> >regex code? Do you think JOE would be better if it used
> >a more "standard" regex library? It might be a huge shot in
> >the arm for JOE.
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around