On 2/19/11, Leo Butler <l.butler at ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> However, I think that cl-ppcre simply uses features of common lisp that
> gcl does not support. Rather than try to shoehorn cl-ppcre into an ill
> fitting gcl shoe, I've been working on extending the nregex code so
> that more modern lisps can use cl-ppcre+build-index while gcl can use
> nregex+build-index. This seems quite feasible--and with a few tweaks,
> the nregex regexes can be quite fast in gcl.
Well, I can't tell you what to work on, but I have to say I'm
not really happy about having two implementations of a large
blob of code.
Frankly I'm inclined to just forge ahead and if some new code
doesn't suit GCL, then that's a reason not to use GCL.
I guess if you want to extend nregex, then that's great,
we can use nregex for all Lisp implementations.
But let's avoid having two regex implementations.
best
Robert Dodier