On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> OK, thanks for confirming that. In that case your patch is OK to
> commit.
Committed.
> I'll raise a defect report against the standard as I don't think the
> specification of nosubs is clear. If that's what it means then it
> should be
On 21/01/14 14:14 -0500, Tim Shen wrote:
My conclusion is actually based on Boost.Regex's behavior.
boost::basic_regex::mark_count() returns 1 with nosubs flag. Note that
boost::basic_regex::mark_count() == std::basic_regex::mark_count() +
1, because std does not count the 0th capture (the whole
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 5:08 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> What does Boost.Regex do?
My conclusion is actually based on Boost.Regex's behavior.
boost::basic_regex::mark_count() returns 1 with nosubs flag. Note that
boost::basic_regex::mark_count() == std::basic_regex::mark_count() +
1, because std
On 20/01/14 17:43 -0500, Tim Shen wrote:
The semantic of `nosubs` should simply be that `let all parentheses
not be a subexpression and do not capture it`.
It's not clear to me whether the standard says that nosubs implies
mark_count() == 0 or that the mark count remains the same, but no
sub-ex
The semantic of `nosubs` should simply be that `let all parentheses
not be a subexpression and do not capture it`.
Tested with -m64 and -m32 respectively.
Thank you!
--
Regards,
Tim Shen
commit 6972b7eb795adb462182ec96684cc94b7bb8a338
Author: tim
Date: Mon Jan 20 17:33:44 2014 -0500
20
