Re: Regexp broken

["Daniel F. Savarese" <df...@savarese.org>]

>concerned, the patterns are the issue.  there is a standardized syntax for
>regular expressions such that regular expressions should be more or less
>portable across implementations. 

I wouldn't say that.  Although there are certain constructs that tend to
be similar across regular expression syntaxes, there are very significant
differences between most flavors.  The regexp project originally set out
to implement a POSIX compatible syntax (I believe) and has added some
Perlesque things that make it a superset of POSIX.  At any rate, I think
sometimes people report things as bugs in regexp that aren't bugs because
they're comparing it to Perl.  Nonetheless, your bug report is still a
bug when compared to POSIX.

>the practical issue with this is that now i'm involved with a project that
>has used regexp based on this hyperbole.  and now we have boneheaded
>workarounds to otherwise simple problems.  

So let's fix the problem(s).  This one's got to be an easy fix.  If one
of the regular committers doesn't have time to look into it, I should
have some time to look at it and submit a patch over the weekend while
I'm working on other Jakarta stuff I'm behind on.

daniel

regexp vs posix vs perl was Re: Regexp broken

[lantz moore <lm...@tump.com>]

"Daniel F. Savarese" <df...@savarese.org> writes:

> >concerned, the patterns are the issue.  there is a standardized syntax for
> >regular expressions such that regular expressions should be more or less
> >portable across implementations. 
> 
> The regexp project originally set out to implement a POSIX compatible
> syntax (I believe) and has added some Perlesque things that make it a
> superset of POSIX.  At any rate, I think sometimes people report things
> as bugs in regexp that aren't bugs because they're comparing it to Perl.
> Nonetheless, your bug report is still a bug when compared to POSIX.

on a somewhat related topic.

in 1.2, the following is in the RETest.txt file:
#30
a[b-]
ac
YES
ac

this seems bogus to me from both a perl and posix standpoint.

-l

Re: Regexp broken

["Edward Q. Bridges" <eb...@argotec.de>]

great!  the issues i've had with it (one that i've run into in work, and then
the issues that came up in discussions with mike dougherty) are in the
archive.  if you'd like, i'll provide pointers to them.

regards
--e--


On Tue, 12 Jun 2001 12:46:43 -0400, Daniel F. Savarese wrote:

>So let's fix the problem(s).  This one's got to be an easy fix.  If one

--------------------------------------------
<argo_tec gmbh>
     ed.q.bridges
     tel. 089-368179.xx
     fax 089-368179.79
     osterwaldstraße 10 
     (haus F eingang 21)
     80805 münchen
</argo_tec gmbh>
--------------------------------------------