Re: cygwin/regex is non-POSIX

2004-01-20 Thread Sam Steingold
> * Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-01-20 11:41:27 -0800]: > On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 04:38:40PM -0500, Sam Steingold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Finally, a common extension appears to be the use or "?" after a >> >> repetition specification to mean non-greedy matching, e.g. >

Re: cygwin/regex is non-POSIX

2004-01-20 Thread Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 04:38:40PM -0500, Sam Steingold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Finally, a common extension appears to be the use or "?" after a > >> repetition specification to mean non-greedy matching, e.g. > >> "a+?" will match only the first "a" in "". > > You want the pcre packages

RE: cygwin/regex is non-POSIX

2004-01-20 Thread Peter J. Acklam
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote. > > Finally, a common extension appears to be the use or "?" after > a repetition specification to mean non-greedy matching, e.g. > "a+?" will match only the first "a" in "". Just a small historical note: This extension first appeared in Perl some 10+ years ago. It i

[OT] Re: cygwin/regex is non-POSIX

2004-01-19 Thread Igor Pechtchanski
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, Sam Steingold wrote: > > * U-DHX98431\sthoenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-01-19 12:13:58 -0800]: > > > > On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 01:54:06PM -0500, Sam Steingold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > * Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-01-17 21:04:50 -0800]: > > That

Re: cygwin/regex is non-POSIX

2004-01-19 Thread Sam Steingold
> * U-DHX98431\sthoenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-01-19 12:13:58 -0800]: > > On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 01:54:06PM -0500, Sam Steingold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > * Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-01-17 21:04:50 -0800]: > That's cute. But what if a real address matches a rot13'

Re: cygwin/regex is non-POSIX

2004-01-19 Thread U-DHX98431\sthoenna
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 01:54:06PM -0500, Sam Steingold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > * Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-01-17 21:04:50 -0800]: That's cute. But what if a real address matches a rot13'd one? > > Also, it says backr

Re: cygwin/regex is non-POSIX

2004-01-19 Thread Sam Steingold
> * Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-01-17 21:04:50 -0800]: > > On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 03:14:57PM -0500, Sam Steingold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> the cygwin regex is not POSIX. >> backrefs are not available by default (apparently you need REG_BACKR for >> that), "(a|)*" cannot

Re: cygwin/regex is non-POSIX

2004-01-17 Thread Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes
On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 03:14:57PM -0500, Sam Steingold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > the cygwin regex is not POSIX. > backrefs are not available by default (apparently you need REG_BACKR for > that), "(a|)*" cannot be compiled because of "empty (sub)expression", > &c &c. > any plans to fix this? (e

cygwin/regex is non-POSIX

2004-01-15 Thread Sam Steingold
the cygwin regex is not POSIX. backrefs are not available by default (apparently you need REG_BACKR for that), "(a|)*" cannot be compiled because of "empty (sub)expression", &c &c. any plans to fix this? (e.g., by replacing it with gnu regex?) thanks. -- Sam Steingold (http://www.podval.org/~sds)