On Sat, 2007-03-17 at 16:08 -0500, Yevgen Muntyan wrote: > Yevgen Muntyan wrote: > > [snip] > > To me here the only good argument in favor of separate Match objects is > > multi-thread uses. > > Simply because we already have Match object, just hidden. If the best > > way to fix GRegex > > for multi-threading is a separate match object, then it should be a > > separate match object. > > > In fact it's not a solution, right? Since if it's separate Match > structure, then Regex still needs to keep state. > So, the solution is to rename some stuff to make GRegex be > a GRegexExp or something, and move the actual functionality > to some new GMatcher, i.e. not change anything conceptually but > explicitly separate Pattern and Matcher. Did I get it right? Yes, I think you've understood what I was talking about with a matcher object ... almost all the methods in GRegex currently other than g_regex_new()/g_regex_optimize() are conceptually matcher methods. I don't have any objection to a matcher object with state; what I don't like is binding it together with the pattern into a single indivisible object. - Owen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part