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

[Rainer Gerhards]

2014-11-03 10:26 GMT+01:00 singh.janmejay <singh.janmejay at gmail.com>:

> 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.
>
>
I really don't like it, because I fear that people will always use regexp,
and so this get's pretty low by default. But I think I've lost that war in
any case ;) So it's OK for me if you implement it - actually, I'd even be a
little bit happy ;-) .

Rainer

Kind of construct im thinking of:
>
> %foo:regex:[a-f0-9]+% to match hex-numbers for instance.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> --
> Regards,
> Janmejay
> http://codehunk.wordpress.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lognorm mailing list
> Lognorm at lists.adiscon.com
> http://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/lognorm
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.adiscon.net/pipermail/lognorm/attachments/20141103/6d07bc15/attachment-0001.html>