[Lognorm] Any reason we should not support regex-based field-type?

[singh.janmejay]

I am thinking of it as a 2nd class field-type.

By that I mean, one gets best performance from 1st class supported
field-types, but if for some reason that is not sufficient for someone,
they can use a regex-field-type. It may be a little low on performance, but
then it unblocks people immediately.

I can do it, just need to know we are not ideologically against it.

Kind of construct im thinking of:

%foo:regex:[a-f0-9]+% to match hex-numbers for instance.

Thoughts?

-- 
Regards,
Janmejay
http://codehunk.wordpress.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.adiscon.net/pipermail/lognorm/attachments/20141103/4cca9a6d/attachment.html>