rw_match() bus (was: Re: test for lib.string.io)

[Martin Sebor <se...@roguewave.com>]

Anton Pevtsov wrote:
> Martin Sebor wrote:
> 
>>But before committing the rest we need to first settle the issue of
> 
> rw_expand().
> 
> Martin, in my previous mail I didn't mention that the problem occur when
> rw_expand is called from the rw_match function.
> Sorry about that. The test which illustrates the problem is here:
> http://people.apache.org/~antonp/stdcxx06262006/rwmatch_rwexpand_test.cp
> p

Hmm. There are two possible interpretations of the third argument
to rw_match():

1. it gives the maximum number of characters to compare (i.e.,
    after all directives have been expanded)

2. it denotes the number of characters in the first argument
    (i.e., before the expansion of any directives).

It looks like currently we do (2). I missed this and made changes
to implement (1). Needless to say, even though my changes are "good",
they cause many failures in the test suite. I need to go back and
implement (1). It shouldn't be too hard but it means that I won't
be able to commit my changes tonight (what I have is attached so you
can see where I am).

Martin

Re: rw_match() bug

[Martin Sebor <se...@roguewave.com>]

Martin Sebor wrote:
[...]
> Hmm. There are two possible interpretations of the third argument
> to rw_match():
> 
> 1. it gives the maximum number of characters to compare (i.e.,
>    after all directives have been expanded)
> 
> 2. it denotes the number of characters in the first argument
>    (i.e., before the expansion of any directives).
> 
> It looks like currently we do (2). I missed this and made changes
> to implement (1). Needless to say, even though my changes are "good",
> they cause many failures in the test suite. I need to go back and
> implement (1). It shouldn't be too hard but it means that I won't
> be able to commit my changes tonight (what I have is attached so you
> can see where I am).

OTOH, (1) seems to make more sense to me. What do you think? If
you agree, how difficult do you think it would be to switch the
string tests to using it instead of (2)?

Martin