From f9cbf7d3d4febc44e7834003eec1f25498da111f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Andrew Gallant Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2017 11:14:57 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] tweak working --- README.md | 8 ++++---- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/README.md b/README.md index df7a893b..27dda1ac 100644 --- a/README.md +++ b/README.md @@ -71,9 +71,9 @@ increases the times to `3.081s` for ripgrep and `11.403s` for GNU grep. ### Why should I use `ripgrep`? -* It can replace both The Silver Searcher and GNU grep because it is faster - than both. (N.B. It is not, strictly speaking, a "drop-in" replacement for - both, but the feature sets are far more similar than different.) +* It can replace both The Silver Searcher and GNU grep because it is generally + faster than both. (N.B. It is not, strictly speaking, a "drop-in" replacement + for both, but the feature sets are far more similar than different.) * Like The Silver Searcher, `ripgrep` defaults to recursive directory search and won't search files ignored by your `.gitignore` files. It also ignores hidden and binary files by default. `ripgrep` also implements full support @@ -118,7 +118,7 @@ multiline search, then `ripgrep` may not quite meet your needs (yet). ### Is it really faster than everything else? -Yes. A large number of benchmarks with detailed analysis for each is +Generally, yes. A large number of benchmarks with detailed analysis for each is [available on my blog](http://blog.burntsushi.net/ripgrep/). Summarizing, `ripgrep` is fast because: