Re: parenthesised regular expressions and non-greedy operator ? - non standard bash behaviour
>From the 2 replies I unterstand that the implementation in bash is correct due to the „official“ standard. For myself I have solved the issue in my script - but the regular expression I developed for my problem are without the 'non-greedy' operator more difficult to read and maintain. From that point of view it would be an improvement for bash to implement the non-greedy operator. Also if I look from an „normal developer“ I think it is a common pitfall if many testing resources and regexp implementations support the 'non-greedy' operator. Maybe there is a switch/option to enable the 'non-greedy' operator in a future release. So please feel free to change the „bug report“ to a „feature request“ ;-) Best Regards, H.-Dirk Schmitt On So, 2017-12-03 at 15:23 -0500, Chet Ramey wrote: > On 12/1/17 12:40 PM, d...@computer42.org wrote: > > > Bash Version: 4.4 > > Patch Level: 12 > > Release Status: release > > > > Description: > > I'm sanitising urls from advertisement crap. As described below > > I'm getting a wrong resolution of parenthesised expression defined > > with non-greedy operator '?'. > > > > The test url is: http://toolbox.contentspread.net/container/medim > > ops/track/xx.dyn?csRdu=https://www.medimops.de/?anid=M9 > > 9&cl=details&wdm=M99&utm_source=CRM&utm_medium=email&ut > > m_campaign=OS > > > > The regular expression is: > > https?:\/\/toolbox.contentspread.net\/(.*?)=(.+?)&.* > > The Bash =~ operator uses Posix extended regexps (EREs) as defined in > http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/V1_chap09.ht > ml#tag_09_04. > There's no concept of a `non-greedy' operator > in the Posix ERE definition. > > Chet >
Re: parenthesised regular expressions and non-greedy operator ? - non standard bash behaviour
On Mo, 2017-12-04 at 16:49 -0500, Chet Ramey wrote: > The thing is, bash doesn't "implement" its regular expressions, per > se. > Bash uses the Posix standard library functions (regcomp/regexec) if > they > are available in the C library when it's configured and built. I'm > not > wild about adding a dependency on pcre, or a configure test for it, > just > to have two varieties of regular expressions available. > > Chet O.k. – so close this as „not a bug“. -- Signature H.-Dirk Schmitt H.-Dirk Schmitt Dipl.Math. eMail:dirk.schm...@computer42.org mobile:+49 177 616 8564 phone: +49 2642 99 41 14 fax: +49 2642 99 41 15 Schillerstr. 42, D-53489 Sinzig pgp: http://www.computer42.org/~dirk/OpenPGP-fingerprint.html
Missing documentation of the integer range (declare -i)
Checked against: GNU bash, Version 4.4.12(1)-release (x86_64-pc-linux- gnu) I carefully read the man page and find no definition of the defined range of integer variables in bash. see also: `man bash |& grep -i integer` Best Regards, H.-Dirk Schmitt
