Page 1 of 1
PCRE dependency
Posted: Sat Nov 01, 2008 18:50
by Pompei2
Hello,
As far as I know, you use PCRE only for the input mask of the editboxes, or am I missing something (grep'ed the sources) ?
Is there any easy way of getting rid of that dependency, as I don't need it ??
I may modify the sources to no more use it when a define is set, or even to use only expressions with "*" and "?" as metacharacters. Would somebody insert it into trunk ? I am not able to edit the configure script, neither the VisualC++ project files as I don't know enough about them.
Or has anybody else done this before (So I do not need to reinvent the wheel) ?
Posted: Tue Nov 04, 2008 10:07
by CrazyEddie
Hi,
As far as I know nobody has done this before. You are correct that PCRE is only used for string validation / input masking on editboxes and spinner widgets.
We intend to introduce a more granular compile with more compile options to discard unwanted parts and also dependencies (including PCRE). This decision was in response to another users request / suggestion.
There will be a ticket added for this (and some other requested options) once I get around to adding them on Mantis. In the mean time, if you want to make your mods and submit them as a patch (on Mantis, I'll tie it all up once I add the feature request tickets), we'll likely use some or all of it when implementing the changes mentioned above.
CE.
Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 22:35
by Pompei2
CrazyEddie wrote:.. and spinner widgets.
Hmm, I took a quick look at that and must admit that it doesn't seem as easy as I tought before, I forgot the spinner
I'll look more into detail at this in some time. I will report my success/failure here for information.
Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 12:44
by CrazyEddie
A thought I had earlier this morning is that it might be useful to abstract our use of PCRE, thus enabling the use of other RegEx libs and user supplied 'lite' or do-nothing versions where appropriate (which might be a better option than excluding widgets entirely due to their reliance on RegEx).
CE
Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 15:28
by Pompei2
CrazyEddie wrote:A thought I had earlier this morning is that it might be useful to abstract our use of PCRE, thus enabling the use of other RegEx libs and user supplied 'lite' or do-nothing versions where appropriate
Yeah, that is a very good idea that I will have in mind when i will work on that thing. Thanks for telling me.
Posted: Mon Dec 08, 2008 22:10
by Sairon
I think it would be nice with an option to use boost regex lib, since a lot of people most likely already will have a dependency on boost.
Posted: Tue Dec 09, 2008 09:18
by CrazyEddie
Sairon wrote:I think it would be nice with an option to use boost regex lib, since a lot of people most likely already will have a dependency on boost.
I agree that once abstracted, the CEGUI should definitely support a boost regex option. This is actually highly amusing to me, because originally we were using boost regex and removed it in favour of PCRE (mainly due to anti-boost user requests)
Posted: Tue Dec 09, 2008 23:24
by Sairon
CrazyEddie wrote:Sairon wrote:I think it would be nice with an option to use boost regex lib, since a lot of people most likely already will have a dependency on boost.
I agree that once abstracted, the CEGUI should definitely support a boost regex option. This is actually highly amusing to me, because originally we were using boost regex and removed it in favour of PCRE (mainly due to anti-boost user requests)
Hehe, that's amusing. I find boost to be a lot easier to setup and maintain than PCRE, at least on windows hehe
Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 18:01
by Pompei2
But boost is a quite big dependency ...