Reuben Thomas wrote:
> I like the balance between having a documented "quote task" data
> structure that can be constructed manually, while having constructor
> functions for the POSIX, PCRE and GNU cases, so as to make casual use
> risk-free.
Thanks for the review.
> The only thing I find confus
On 6 March 2011 13:51, Reuben Thomas wrote:
> On 6 March 2011 13:41, Bruno Haible wrote:
>>
>>> RE_NO_BK_REFS -> [:digit:]
>>
>> I don't know what you mean by that? '[' and ']' are already in the list of
>> characters to be escaped. So no need to look at RE_NO_BK_REFS, right?
>
> I'm not sure wha
On 6 March 2011 13:41, Bruno Haible wrote:
>
>> RE_NO_BK_REFS -> [:digit:]
>
> I don't know what you mean by that? '[' and ']' are already in the list of
> characters to be escaped. So no need to look at RE_NO_BK_REFS, right?
I'm not sure what it has to do with '[' and ']', but indeed if the
inpu
Hello Reuben,
> > Before we can decide on this, IMO some analysis is needed:
> >
> > - What are the possible effects of reg_syntax_t on the string of
> > characters to be escaped? I can see
> > RE_BK_PLUS_QM -> +?
> > RE_INTERVALS, RE_NO_BK_BRACES -> {}
> >
On 5 March 2011 14:51, Bruno Haible wrote:
> Hello Reuben,
>
>> regex-quote seems only to support two syntaxes at the moment
>
> Yes. POSIX specifies two syntaxes.
regex.h suggests that in practice there are a couple more:
RE_SYNTAX_POSIX_EGREP
RE_SYNTAX_POSIX_AWK
each of which is different fro
Hello Reuben,
> regex-quote seems only to support two syntaxes at the moment
Yes. POSIX specifies two syntaxes.
> and it does it in a rather odd way: by a single boolean flag.
Rather it's an 'int' with the same meaning as the cflags argument that you
pass to regcomp().
> I wonder if there's sc
regex-quote seems only to support two syntaxes at the moment, and it
does it in a rather odd way: by a single boolean flag.
I wonder if there's scope to change this.
The obvious representation of syntaxes from a GNU point of view would
be a bitmask of type reg_syntax_t as passed to re_set_syntax.
