From owner-freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jul 10 12:10:30 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 DA60D16A41C for ; Sun, 10 Jul 2005 12:10:30 +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 8FED243D45 for ; Sun, 10 Jul 2005 12:10:30 +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 j6ACAUJp008537 for ; Sun, 10 Jul 2005 12:10:30 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.3/8.13.1/Submit) id j6ACAUL6008536; Sun, 10 Jul 2005 12:10:30 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 12:10:30 GMT Message-Id: <200507101210.j6ACAUL6008536@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.org From: Giorgos Keramidas 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: Giorgos Keramidas List-Id: Documentation project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 12:10:31 -0000 The following reply was made to PR docs/70507; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Giorgos Keramidas To: "Daniel C. Sobral" 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: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 15:05:55 +0300 On 2005-07-09 23:01, "Daniel C. Sobral" wrote: >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? :-) Nothing was changed, since I wasn't sure of what to do. Thanks for the clarification :-) Does this mean we can close this PR now?