Re: [Gnu-arch-users] tla1.1 plans

[Miles Bader]

On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 12:18:51PM -0700, Tom Lord wrote:
>     > I have a few more things I'd like to change as well.
> 
> Is the "sometime in October" timing a problem?

Nah, it's all trivial stuff, rename this-to-that, etc.

>     > How does this relate to support for using directory-context in
>     > =tagging-methods, i.e., so a regexp can match FOO in one
>     > directory, but not another?  That _is_ something I'd really like
>     > to see.
> 
> I'm slightly nervous about that stuff, actually.
> 
> Implmented naively, it's going to slow-down inventories noticably on
> trees that use it.   (And slowing down inventories impacts everything
> else, just about.)
> 
> Implemented to be fast -- well, that's just plain hard.

Can you share some more thought on the implementation details of the problem?

Is the full pathname available at the point where regexp matching gets done?

My initial assumption was that you could just match each file twice against
the current regexps, once with the basename (as now), and once with the full
path.  Then current regexps would still work, but people could also stick in
`foo/bar/.*\.c'.  Some problems with this -- (1) there's no way to write a
specific `only in the root dir' regexp that doesn't also match basenames, and
(2), the `.' meta-character matches '/', which might sometimes cause
surprising results.

> So there's a cost/benefit question here and what I'm wondering (and
> taking as a hypothesis) is that the untagged-source foo is ample here.

I must admit that I can't see at all how untagged-source (useful though it
is) has any connection with directory-specific regexp matching...

Thanks,

-Miles
-- 
`Suppose Korea goes to the World Cup final against Japan and wins,' Moon said.
`All the past could be forgiven.'   [NYT]