Re: regexp regressions

Sam Steingold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > frankly I don't know and don't care whether the old or new was / is broken. > All I care about is consistency. I'm afraid that we won't get complete consistency when using various regex implementations. They don't agree about the fine details. As it s

Re: regexp regressions

> * Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-08-20 23:01:23 -0700]: > > Sam Steingold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> the latest and greatest gnulib regexp has the following regressions vs >> the previous (monolithic) version: > > Sorry, I didn't understand the notation that you used in >

Re: regexp regressions

Sam Steingold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > the latest and greatest gnulib regexp has the following regressions vs > the previous (monolithic) version: Sorry, I didn't understand the notation that you used in . I tried to reprod

regexp regressions

the latest and greatest gnulib regexp has the following regressions vs the previous (monolithic) version: (defun re-test (pattern string) (mapcar (lambda (match) (and match (regexp:match-string string match))) (multiple-value-list (regexp:regexp-exec (regexp:rege