On Mon, 9 May 2022 at 20:29, Paul Eggert <egg...@cs.ucla.edu> wrote: > On 5/8/22 15:54, Reuben Thomas wrote: > > > I sympathise if the gnulib maintainers don't want to reintroduce them; in > > that case, could their removal please be flagged up in the docs? > > Sure, I installed the attached. >
Thanks! I didn't think of this before, is regex.texi supposed to document GNU regex, then? It's a bit confusing, since GNU regex isn't available in gnulib. But that's the documentation I really had in mind to fix. > Also, do the maintainers have any better suggestion for what I should do > > than revert to GNU regex 0.12 for a2ps? It relies on syntax tables for > its > > style sheets, and I don't want to have to introduce an incompatibility > to a > > mature program. > > Perhaps you can transliterate the regexps using syntax-table features > into those without? (I'm not familiar with the issue here.) > I could indeed, but it's quite inconvenient without the notion of boundaries (e.g. \b). Failing that, you could also try GNU Emacs's regex implementation, which > is derived from GNU regex 0.12, and which may have fewer bugs than regex > 0.12. That's a good suggestion I hadn't thought of, thanks. I had a look at Emacs git, and it seems to use glibc regex, though? (No surprise, it wouldn't use the original syntax tables any more either.) -- https://rrt.sc3d.org
