On Thu, Feb 2, 2023 at 11:22 AM demerphq <demerphq@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I've been lurking watching some of the regex discussion on the list > and personally I think it is asking for trouble to use "whatever regex > engine is traditional in a given environment" instead of just choosing > a good open source engine and using it consistently everywhere. I > don't really buy the arguments I have seen to justify a policy of "use > the standard library version"; regex engines vary widely in > performance and implementation and feature set, and even the really > good ones do not entirely agree on every semantic[1], so if you don't > standardize you will be forever dealing with bugs related to those > differences. My understanding is that the patch suspected in the subject and linked several times in this thread _does_ use the native Darwin regex library which causes the problem, but I can't reproduce it in a smaller program (see previous mail). -- D. Ben Knoble
