On Sun, 20 Apr 2025 at 17:42, <to...@tuxteam.de> wrote: > On Sun, Apr 20, 2025 at 05:58:31PM +0100, debian-u...@howorth.org.uk wrote:
> > Err, did you notice the bit in that reference that says: "It documents > > regular expressions in the form available within KatePart, which is not > > compatible with the regular expressions of perl"? Note that PCRE stands > > for Perl Compatible Regular Expressions. > And note PCRE is not Perl's regexps, but just "inspired by". They > converged and diverged over their respective histories. To get an > idea of the current situation, perhaps [2] is relevant. [...] > [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PCRE#Differences_from_Perl Thanks for pointing that out. I was guilty of the same misconception when I erroneously wrote here yesterday: > According to [?] it might be [?], which at a glance looks like it uses > PCRE (ie PERL, contradicting the above statement). But there's no contradiction. My mistake was to assume that PCRE and PERL regex are the same codebase, but that's not correct. So it's not surprising that they might have some differences. Thanks for the useful wikipedia page.
