Re: patch adding new regexp functions

On Fri, 2007-02-09 at 01:08 -0800, Jeremy Drake wrote:
> Yeah, I try to do that, but this one just barely passed my personal
> compression threshold.  Guess I should raise my threshold :)

No, don't pay any attention to me, I'm just lazy :)

> Here is a new version of the patch which fixes up the documentation a
> little (should have read it over again before posting).

The "doing_srf" business is rather tortured, and seems an invitation for
bugs. ISTM there should be a cleaner way to implement this. For example,
would it be possible to put all the common logic into one or more
additional functions, and then have SRF vs. non-SRF cases that call into
those functions after doing the appropriate initialization?

-Neil