On 4 August 2010 00:17, Karl Berry <k...@freefriends.org> wrote: > > two real arguments in favour > of regex.texi are: > - It less Makefile rules to use it directly, and regex.h changes rarely > enough. > > These days, I agree with that. I think the simplicity of having the doc > not be generated outweighs the automatic sync-ing. (Back in time, Kathy > and I were actually changing regex.h a lot, so the automatic sync made > sense.)
OK, so nothing to change about the initial state of affairs; I'll start from what's in the archive. >> Supplementary question: in regexprops-generic.texi, I think that >> having a plain English definition of the various syntaxes obscures the >> fact that each is defined as a strict combination of features. Would >> you be happy if I rewrote the manual as English documentation of each >> feature plus a simple list (possibly automatically generated from >> regex.h) of which features are present in which syntax? > > Sounds fine to me. James can decide if he wants to pick up that version > for findutils or keep using regexprops ... It would be nice to hear from him; I'd rather not fork if he has strong feelings. I'll email bug-findutils. Thanks, Karl. -- http://rrt.sc3d.org
