Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 02:10:14 GMT From: "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@newsguy.com> To: freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: docs/70507: RE in BUG section of re_format(7) in obsolete notation Message-ID: <200507100210.j6A2AEGO096251@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR docs/70507; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@newsguy.com>
To: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@FreeBSD.org>
Cc: Marian Cerny <jojo@matfyz.cz>, bug-followup@FreeBSD.org,
"Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@FreeBSD.org>, Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.org>,
"David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.org>
Subject: Re: docs/70507: RE in BUG section of re_format(7) in obsolete notation
Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2005 23:01:07 -0300
Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
> On 2004-08-16 01:30, Marian Cerny <jojo@matfyz.cz> wrote:
>
>>Shouldn't this paragraph in BUGS section in manual page of re_format:
>>
>> Back references are a dreadful botch, posing major problems for
>> efficient implementations. They are also somewhat vaguely
>> defined (does `a\(\(b\)*\2\)*d' match `abbbd'?).
>> Avoid using them.
>>
>>be
>>
>> Back references are a dreadful botch, posing major problems for
>> efficient implementations. They are also somewhat vaguely
>> defined (does `a((b)*\2)*d' match `abbbd'?).
>> Avoid using them.
>>
>>because `a\(\(b\)*\2\)*d' is in obsolete notation? Or does this bug
>>concern only the obsolete REs?
>
>
> You're probably right that we should change the syntax to look like a
> modern RE. The basic RE syntax is still used by many utils in the base
> system though. This is probably why the regexp has remained as you see
> it now.
>
> Daniel, Ruslan and David... what do you think? Is this change ok?
Old, OLD messages... This was lost in a number of spams I'm happing to
be clearing right now. Thing about back references is... they didn't
work with Extended Regex, only with basic Regex, which is the obsolete
notation.
So I'm guessing the rewritten example wouldn't work, because back
references is not supported with that syntax. So, if this change was
done, could someone check if back references are actually supported in
extended regex (the modern syntax), and, if not, undone this change? :-)
--
Daniel C. Sobral (8-DCS)
dcs@newsguy.com
dcs@freebsd.org
capo@the.great.underground.bsdconpiracy.org
In related news Microsoft Windows users are now covered
under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200507100210.j6A2AEGO096251>