Bart Schaefer:
[PCRE]
Procmail's greediness etc. are different
for a reason: In most cases procmail rules are merely testing for
*any* match of the regular expression, not for the "canonical" match.
Replacing procmail semantics with PCRE semantics (not just PCRE
syntax) could significantly reduce its efficiency as a stream scanner.
I don't follow this. How is using a :0p (to switch over to PCRE for that
recipe) reducing efficiency? It could replace many calls of sed etc.
that people do now.
BTW, the PCRE is suggested as an enhancement, not as a replacement.
Current behaviour should remain the default.
Could you illustrate your point with some examples?
After reading `man perlre` I think that current behaviour can be fully
emulated in PCRE-mode. Example:
procmail: * ^Subject:(.*\<)?\/.*
PCRE: * ^Subject:(?.*?\W)?(.*)
Current behaviour could be enhanced with a flag that results in setting
'$MATCH1..$MATCHn' (and/or '\1..\n' and/or '$1..$n') to the groups in
the MATCH.
--
Grtz, Ruud
____________________________________________________________
procmail mailing list Procmail homepage: http://www.procmail.org/
procmail(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/procmail