On 23 July 2013 10:18, Tim Shen wrote:
>
> Are other parts ok? Could you please look at them?
In regex_token_iterator::_M_init the for loop could be replaced with
either for (auto __i : subs) or a call to std::find, which wouldn't
need the cast to int, but that's just stylistic and a matter of tas
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 6:10 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> They're not specified by the standard, it says
>
> // these members are shown for exposition only:
>
> Which means the names are used only for the purposes of describing the
> semantics of the class, they are not normative requirements. See
On 22 July 2013 06:13, Tim Shen wrote:
>
> Actually, in code before this patch, private members in class
> regex_iterator are indeed start without double or single underscore.
> It's because the standard (28.12, n3376) specifies them, though they
> are private. IMHO, they are part of standard, so I
Hi,
>Great. This is the fixed version.
Patch is Ok with me but before committing please give a chance to Jon and other
interested parties to have a look.
Two more general comments: when you opencode more than a few lines don't
hesitate to add comments too (remember that the new code must be
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Definitely. For the usual reason that if somebody in user code has a macro
> with the same name before including the header the code is busted. Of course
> _M_ or _S_ (vs _uppercase) is our specific convention for data members and
> statis
Hi,
>Should I change them all to "_M_" or "__" format, and why?
Definitely. For the usual reason that if somebody in user code has a macro with
the same name before including the header the code is busted. Of course _M_ or
_S_ (vs _uppercase) is our specific convention for data members and st
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 9:12 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Also you are wrongly "un-uglyfying" many names, eg:
>
> - position_iterator __position;
> - const value_type* __result;
> - value_type__suffix;
> - std::size_t __n;
> - std::vector __subs;
>
>
> Remembe
On 07/22/2013 02:47 AM, Tim Shen wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57513 is already in the
testsuite and can passed(even before this patch?).
To fully test it, a fully regex_search implementation is required. I'm
working on a (damning) backtracking engine for it.
A couple of com
