On Sun, Aug 14, 2005 at 01:45:48PM -0400, Stephen Gran wrote: > The test introduced as a result of 296233 is a little overzealous, > catching valid POSIX regular expressions. The patch below fixes it, > hopefully correctly. > > --- checks/scripts.old 2005-08-14 13:28:30.000000000 -0400 > +++ checks/scripts 2005-08-14 13:35:13.000000000 -0400 > @@ -461,7 +461,7 @@ > '(?:^|\s+)(trap\s+["\']?.*["\']?\s+.*[1-9])', # trap with > sign > al numbers > '(?:^|\s+)(local)\s', # local scoping of variables > '(\&>)', # cshism > - '(\[\[)', # alternative test command > + > '(\[\[[^:(alnum|alpha|blank|cntrl|digit|graph|lower|print|punc > t|space|upper|xdigit)])', # alternative test command, but not POSIX regex > );
I think you meant \[\[(?!:(alnum|alpha|blank|cntrl|digit|graph|lower|print|punct|space|upper|xdigit)) And I think I will go for just \[\[[^:] which should weed out all false positives while introducing few false negatives after all Thanks for the report. Gruesse, -- Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> www: http://www.djpig.de/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
