On Tue, 2003-02-04 at 18:21, Tom Lane wrote:
> 4. pcre looks like it's probably *not* as well suited to a multibyte
> environment. In particular, I doubt that its UTF8 compile option was
> even turned on for the performance comparison Neil cited --- and the man
> page only promises "experimental, incomplete support for UTF-8 encoded
> strings". The Tcl code by contrast is used only in a multibyte
> environment, so that's the supported, optimized path. It doesn't even
> assume null-terminated strings (yay).
If we are going into code-lifting business, we should also consider
Pythons sre (a modified pcre, that works both on 8-bit and python's
unicode (either 16 or 32 byte chars, depending on compile options))
It has no specific support for "raw" utf-8 or other variable-width
encodings.
--
Hannu Krosing <hannu@tm.ee>