From owner-freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jul 10 02:10:14 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-doc@hub.freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-doc@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC52416A41C for ; Sun, 10 Jul 2005 02:10:14 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B9D943D46 for ; Sun, 10 Jul 2005 02:10:14 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (gnats@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j6A2AEYP096253 for ; Sun, 10 Jul 2005 02:10:14 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.3/8.13.1/Submit) id j6A2AEGO096251; Sun, 10 Jul 2005 02:10:14 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 02:10:14 GMT Message-Id: <200507100210.j6A2AEGO096251@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.org From: "Daniel C. Sobral" Cc: Subject: Re: docs/70507: RE in BUG section of re_format(7) in obsolete notation X-BeenThere: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: "Daniel C. Sobral" List-Id: Documentation project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 02:10:15 -0000 The following reply was made to PR docs/70507; it has been noted by GNATS. From: "Daniel C. Sobral" To: Giorgos Keramidas Cc: Marian Cerny , bug-followup@FreeBSD.org, "Daniel C. Sobral" , Ruslan Ermilov , "David O'Brien" 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 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.