From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Jul 27 5:49:42 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from pop3-3.enteract.com (pop3-3.enteract.com [207.229.143.32]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BF06E14D23 for ; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 05:49:39 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dscheidt@enteract.com) Received: (qmail 48400 invoked from network); 27 Jul 1999 12:49:22 -0000 Received: from shell-1.enteract.com (dscheidt@207.229.143.40) by pop3-3.enteract.com with SMTP; 27 Jul 1999 12:49:22 -0000 Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 07:49:22 -0500 (CDT) From: David Scheidt To: Sheldon Hearn Cc: "Brian F. Feldman" , Soren Schmidt , Dag-Erling Smorgrav , hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: replacing grep(1) In-Reply-To: <12615.933078748@axl.noc.iafrica.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Tue, 27 Jul 1999, Sheldon Hearn wrote: > In this case, I'm all for the change, since I don't use grep for serious > regex work and the readability gain outweighs any loss of performance. > you probably feel the same way. Out opinions are those of developers, > though. It's always worth remembering that. Does any have numbers about how much slower the new grep is? I have been using the port (version 3) for my interactive grepping, and havedn't noticed a speed difference. I have been using it on zippy machines though, where 30% hit wouldn't be noticed. David Scheidt To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message