On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Paolo Carlini <paolo.carl...@oracle.com> wrote: > Great. A quick-quick comment: if these are the last two features, why we > can't un-xfail the testcase which we added latety? Also, a grep revealed a > couple more xfails. Can you clarify?
I say `feature` when I think that, what these xfails reveal are too small to be features, say, regex_search/regex_match flags. Now turns out "feature" is not a good word for them. I do mean all C++ library independent part, or pure regex function part, are done. Next days I will add flags implementation. > Also, much more generally, I would be curious about the remaining work: I > think essentially it boils down to the vagaries for the other non-default > regex dialects? Is it a lot of work? This patch(http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2013-08/msg00142.html) already supports all dialects(ECMAScript, basic, extended, grep, egrep, awk) specified by standard. Most of the differences between them are eliminated by _Scanner, aka tokenizer, so it's actually not a lot of work to even add one more syntax. But again, I think more testcases are needed, especially from those experienced regex users. I'm actually not a big fan of regex(but of NFA ;), or can I borrow some boost/libc++ testcases without making any licence trouble? Thanks! -- Tim Shen
