On Thursday 12 May 2005 04:58, Patrick R. Michaud wrote: > On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 09:49:47AM +0200, Jens Rieks wrote: > > On Wednesday 11 May 2005 04:30, Patrick R. Michaud wrote: > > > ...well, in looking at it some more it's reasonable until I see > > > that returning -1 is the way the other find_* ops work. So, > > > part of me thinks we should either be consistent with those, or > > > make the others consistent with the interpretation I gave above, or > > > rename the find_cclass and find_not_cclass ops to something different > > > (perhaps "span_cclass" and "span_not_cclass") so as to avoid > > > confusion, or deprecate the pre-existing find_* ops. > > > > IMO, we should deprecate the old find_* ops. > > It's a lot of (more or less) duplicate code, and not easy to maintain. > > I wrote a patch [#35410] to get find_cclass and find_not_cclass to work > as described in my latest message (returning string length); > do you want to review it at all or should I just apply it > directly? (Didn't want to apply the patch without checking > w/you first.) Oops. I've applied the patch, but I was in a hurry and forgot to commit it :-( Sorry for the delay!
> Thanks! > > Pm
