I've just started reading "Mastering Regular Expressions" because, while I use them many times in any given day, there's a heap that I don't know and I thought it was time to bite the bullet.
One of the first new things I discovered was lookahead and lookbehind. I was keen to try this stuff out, so I powered up IRB and had a go. Sadly, 1.8.2 doesn't have lookbehind, so the first cool thing I tried failed :-(.
I then remembered that there was a separate regex system called Onigurama. A bit of Googling revealed that Matz had said that Onigurama would be adopted in 1.9. If that's the case, I'll go to the trouble of downloading and building a copy of 1.9 myself.
I just thought I'd check first that Matz's plan came to be. Is Onigurama used in 1.9?
Also, is there any roadmap as to when Onigurama will be standard? I'm happy to use 1.9 for my regex learning, but it would be nice to be able to use Onigurama for "production" work, too.
I've just started reading "Mastering Regular Expressions" because, while I use them many times in any given day, there's a heap that I don't know and I thought it was time to bite the bullet.
One of the first new things I discovered was lookahead and lookbehind. I was keen to try this stuff out, so I powered up IRB and had a go. Sadly, 1.8.2 doesn't have lookbehind, so the first cool thing I tried failed :-(.
I then remembered that there was a separate regex system called Onigurama. A bit of Googling revealed that Matz had said that Onigurama would be adopted in 1.9. If that's the case, I'll go to the trouble of downloading and building a copy of 1.9 myself.
I just thought I'd check first that Matz's plan came to be. Is Onigurama used in 1.9?
Also, is there any roadmap as to when Onigurama will be standard? I'm happy to use 1.9 for my regex learning, but it would be nice to be able to use Onigurama for "production" work, too.
Cheers,
Harry O.
It would be great if Onigurama can be selected as drop-in replacement with a simple command-line option when installing ruby 1.8.2.
I just thought I'd check first that Matz's plan came to be. Is
Onigurama used in 1.9?
According to:
Oniguruma would make it in 1.9
1.8.2 is due later this month, I'd say it will take
some months before 1.9.0 sees the light of day,
maybe in time for the next Rubyconf.
(pure especulation on my part)
Is it not possible/practical to use Onigurama as a separate library?
Gavin
···
On Tuesday, July 20, 2004, 8:10:57 AM, Harry wrote:
Also, is there any roadmap as to when Onigurama will be standard? I'm
happy to use 1.9 for my regex learning, but it would be nice to be able
to use Onigurama for "production" work, too.
It is my understanding that 1.9 already uses Oniguruma as its default
regexp engine. However, 1.9 is not a "release" version -- and it will
never see the "light of day"; the next "major" version will be 2.0 --
Ruby 1.7 was a dev version; 1.9 is also a dev version. It's like the
Linux kernel releases (2.4, 2.6 are public versions; 2.5 and 2.7 are
dev versions).
-austin
···
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 08:03:33 +0900, vruz <horacio.lopez@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
> I just thought I'd check first that Matz's plan came to be. Is
> Onigurama used in 1.9?
1.8.2 is due later this month, I'd say it will take
some months before 1.9.0 sees the light of day,
maybe in time for the next Rubyconf.
(pure especulation on my part)
If you get Onigurama from the cvs, it states in the README (i think) how to compile 1.8 to use Onigurama. I remember it being pretty simple, I think you just pass a special option to Onigurama's configure, and then configure/make Ruby.
cheers,
Mark
···
On Jul 19, 2004, at 3:42 PM, Gully Foyle wrote:
It would be great if Onigurama can be selected as drop-in replacement with a simple command-line option when installing ruby 1.8.2.
il Tue, 20 Jul 2004 08:12:57 +0900, Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair@soyabean.com.au> ha scritto::
On Tuesday, July 20, 2004, 8:10:57 AM, Harry wrote:
Also, is there any roadmap as to when Onigurama will be standard? I'm
happy to use 1.9 for my regex learning, but it would be nice to be able
to use Onigurama for "production" work, too.
Is it not possible/practical to use Onigurama as a separate library?
It is my understanding that 1.9 already uses Oniguruma as its default
regexp engine. However, 1.9 is not a "release" version -- and it will
never see the "light of day"; the next "major" version will be 2.0 --
Ruby 1.7 was a dev version; 1.9 is also a dev version. It's like the
The numbering policy has changed. What you describe applied up to 1.8,
but 1.9.1 will be a stable release too.
Remember that 2.0 will be a complete reimplementation...
···
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 08:10:42AM +0900, Austin Ziegler wrote:
Linux kernel releases (2.4, 2.6 are public versions; 2.5 and 2.7 are
dev versions).
--
Running Debian GNU/Linux Sid (unstable)
batsman dot geo at yahoo dot com
oh okay. my mistake.
Yafcot:atj(*),
mark
* Yet another fool coming over this: according to joey
-- mark@mail.novare.net
> It would be great if Onigurama can be selected as drop-in replacement
> with a simple command-line option when installing ruby 1.8.2.
If you get Onigurama from the cvs, it states in the README (i think)
how to compile 1.8 to use Onigurama. I remember it being pretty simple,
I think you just pass a special option to Onigurama's configure, and
then configure/make Ruby.
On FreeBSD systems, one has just to specify "WITH_ONIGURUMA=yes" with
make or portinstall to get it.
Just did that and it works like a charm!
I recently switched over to FreeBSD vom Debian and FreeBSD's-ruby-support
turns out to be one more point that makes me enjoy it a lot
If someone wants to set up a "Ruby 1.8.x with Onigurama".tar.gz, I'd be
happy to post it here:
I would, but it is -rather- easy to make it go with 1.8 yourself. I've
been using it that way for many months now. Works like a charm, and only
a couple extra steps in the install. Read the README that comes with
Oniguruma and it becomes clear.
HI Michael,
what do you think about FreeBSD in general? I am about using FreeBSD too, but
don't exactly know the (dis-)advantages especially in contrast to Debian.
What I am looking for is a personal view (and not 'theoratical' handbook
stuff).
So, if you'd spend a minute, i'll be glad to read your statement.
Many Thanks and lucky coding
Ralf
···
Am Donnerstag, 22. Juli 2004 08:57 schrieb Michael Mueller:
Ollivier Robert wrote:
> On FreeBSD systems, one has just to specify "WITH_ONIGURUMA=yes" with
> make or portinstall to get it.
Just did that and it works like a charm!
I recently switched over to FreeBSD vom Debian and FreeBSD's-ruby-support
turns out to be one more point that makes me enjoy it a lot
HI Michael,
what do you think about FreeBSD in general? I am about using FreeBSD too,
but don't exactly know the (dis-)advantages especially in contrast to
Debian.
What I am looking for is a personal view (and not 'theoratical' handbook
stuff).
To make it short: I love it
I'm not using it as a server but as a workstation both at home and @work.
I was always quite satisfied with woody on both my boxes but was since I'm
not willing to use the old software woody provides (e. g. kde 2.2) I was
using lots of backports.
First I switched at home and after using it at home for about half a year, I
switched at work too last week
The imho coolest thing of FreeBSD ist the strict separation between base
system and Ports. I'm using 4.10 stable - let's say that's somehow like
using Debian woody - but I can always install the lates software like kde
3.2.3, ruby 1.8.1 etc....
One thing to consider is, that if you want new versions, you nearly always
have to compile them by yourself... in the case of ruby no big deal, but
when you want to compile kde or openoffice you can easily keep your box
occupied the whole night or more...
I'm using it on a celeron 1100 and it's ok to do such things at night....
but it wouldn't dare to compile big programs on let's say an P2-300...
However FreeBSD when compared to linux lacks supports for some new
hardware.. AFAIK there is no USB 2.0-support in the 4.X STABLE Line... But
since I don't have any fancy Multimedia-equipment I don't care..
sounds great,
what i wonder about is the linux binary compatibility. Do You know, what it
exactly means? Can i simply run binaries compiled for linux, or can i even
compile for linux on a FreeBSD machine? Is it possible to install rpm or deb
packages?
regards
ralf
···
Am Donnerstag, 22. Juli 2004 10:22 schrieb Michael Mueller:
To make it short: I love it
I'm not using it as a server but as a workstation both at home and @work.
I was always quite satisfied with woody on both my boxes but was since I'm
not willing to use the old software woody provides (e. g. kde 2.2) I was
using lots of backports.
First I switched at home and after using it at home for about half a year,
I switched at work too last week
The imho coolest thing of FreeBSD ist the strict separation between base
system and Ports. I'm using 4.10 stable - let's say that's somehow like
using Debian woody - but I can always install the lates software like kde
3.2.3, ruby 1.8.1 etc....
One thing to consider is, that if you want new versions, you nearly always
have to compile them by yourself... in the case of ruby no big deal, but
when you want to compile kde or openoffice you can easily keep your box
occupied the whole night or more...
I'm using it on a celeron 1100 and it's ok to do such things at night....
but it wouldn't dare to compile big programs on let's say an P2-300...
However FreeBSD when compared to linux lacks supports for some new
hardware.. AFAIK there is no USB 2.0-support in the 4.X STABLE Line... But
since I don't have any fancy Multimedia-equipment I don't care..
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
there is no place like 127.0.0.1
The imho coolest thing of FreeBSD ist the strict
separation between base
system and Ports. I'm using 4.10 stable - let's say
that's somehow like
Ok, this seems pretty outdated to me. FreeBSD 5.2.1 is
out, and is very stable. You should try that out. They
just apply fixes and a couple other things to the 4.x
tree now. I use FreeBSD as a workstation as well. The
"is only good as a server" talk is pure talk, not
true. Its very reliable as a desktop. If you don't
want to use 5.x you might consider using DragonflyBSD
since it forked FreeBSD 4.x tree. It has lots of nice
features of 5.x without the bloat, new threading
system which is faster(reason I use it), and its being
developed as a new technology system as opposed to
FreeBSD's sluggish development(lately they have not
been very active IMO). --David Ross
I'm not using it as a server but as a workstation both at home and @work.
I was always quite satisfied with woody on both my boxes but was since I'm
not willing to use the old software woody provides (e. g. kde 2.2) I was
using lots of backports.
First I switched at home and after using it at home for about half a year,
I switched at work too last week
The imho coolest thing of FreeBSD ist the strict separation between base
system and Ports. I'm using 4.10 stable - let's say that's somehow like
using Debian woody - but I can always install the lates software like kde
3.2.3, ruby 1.8.1 etc....
One thing to consider is, that if you want new versions, you nearly always
have to compile them by yourself... in the case of ruby no big deal, but
when you want to compile kde or openoffice you can easily keep your box
occupied the whole night or more...
I'm using it on a celeron 1100 and it's ok to do such things at night....
but it wouldn't dare to compile big programs on let's say an P2-300...
However FreeBSD when compared to linux lacks supports for some new
hardware.. AFAIK there is no USB 2.0-support in the 4.X STABLE Line... But
since I don't have any fancy Multimedia-equipment I don't care..
sounds great,
what i wonder about is the linux binary compatibility. Do You know, what it exactly means? Can i simply run binaries compiled for linux, or can i even compile for linux on a FreeBSD machine? Is it possible to install rpm or deb packages?
Yes, you can run Linux binaries on FreeBSD. The linux syscalls are "simply" mapped to FreeBSD syscalls.
But that does not work in any case. Mostly, the problems are due to missing shared libraries. But for example the Linux version of Mathematica 5 runs fine on FreeBSD, Maple, too.
Regards,
Michael
···
Am Donnerstag, 22. Juli 2004 10:22 schrieb Michael Mueller:
The ports system benefits from the focus on source packages. Afret
trying FreeBSD I saw more packages than I could imagine any distribution
could have. But now that I have seen Gentoo Linux I think it is because
of the focus on source packages, not different kernel+license.
I am currently using NetBSD and the binary emulation in there is used
like this: there are packages which wrap some basic SuSe rpms (like
libc) and others that wrap Linux binaries (like OpenOffice or Mozilla).
It is then possible to install them without recompiling the software for
NetBSD. However, I recompiled even OpenOffice on my PIII 500 because the
native one is quite stable and the binary emulation would crash even the
whole system.
Another problem is convincing the package manager to install packages
for different platform. I think it is easy to just unpack the package
but running the install scripts and tracking dependencies as usual would
be probably quite hard.
Michal Suchanek
···
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 06:09:12PM +0900, Ralf Müller wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 22. Juli 2004 10:22 schrieb Michael Mueller:
> To make it short: I love it
> hardware.. AFAIK there is no USB 2.0-support in the 4.X STABLE Line... But
> since I don't have any fancy Multimedia-equipment I don't care..
>
sounds great,
what i wonder about is the linux binary compatibility. Do You know, what it
exactly means? Can i simply run binaries compiled for linux, or can i even
compile for linux on a FreeBSD machine? Is it possible to install rpm or deb
packages?
