You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to regexp-dev@jakarta.apache.org by bu...@apache.org on 2001/09/09 01:00:59 UTC
[DO NOT REPLY: Bug 810]
Error in regex
PLEASE DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE. TO FURTHER COMMENT
ON THE STATUS OF THIS BUG PLEASE FOLLOW THE LINK BELOW
AND USE THE ON-LINE APPLICATION. REPLYING TO THIS MESSAGE
DOES NOT UPDATE THE DATABASE, AND SO YOUR COMMENT WILL
BE LOST SOMEWHERE.
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=810
*** shadow/810 Sun May 20 17:22:20 2001
--- shadow/810.tmp.3337 Sat Sep 8 16:00:59 2001
***************
*** 1,19 ****
! Bug#: 810
! Product: Regexp
! Version: unspecified
! Platform: PC
! OS/Version:
! Status: NEW
! Resolution:
! Severity: Major
! Priority:
! Component: Other
! AssignedTo: regexp-dev@jakarta.apache.org
! ReportedBy: euge@guppy.mpe.nus.edu.sg
! URL:
! Cc:
! Summary: Error in regex
!
The following regular expression does not work with regex 1.2 (haven't tried
with older versions of regex though).
--- 1,19 ----
! +============================================================================+
! | Error in regex |
! +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
! | Bug #: 810 Product: Regexp |
! | Status: RESOLVED Version: unspecified |
! | Resolution: DUPLICATE Platform: PC |
! | Severity: Major OS/Version: All |
! | Priority: High Component: Other |
! +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
! | Assigned To: regexp-dev@jakarta.apache.org |
! | Reported By: euge@guppy.mpe.nus.edu.sg |
! | CC list: Cc: |
! +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
! | URL: |
! +============================================================================+
! | DESCRIPTION |
The following regular expression does not work with regex 1.2 (haven't tried
with older versions of regex though).
***************
*** 22,24 ****
--- 22,29 ----
If my input is a '-' character, the regular expression does not match.
Logically, it should match since it has not been excluded from the expression.
I've verified it under perl that it should match.
+
+ ------- Additional Comments From gholam@xtra.co.nz 2001-09-08 16:00 -------
+
+
+ *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 2121 ***