From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Luc Teirlinck Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Unquoted special characters in regexps Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2006 17:16:40 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <200603042316.k24NGeZ00520@raven.dms.auburn.edu> References: <4400AD8E.5050001@gmx.at> <4400BBB1.2050800@gmx.at> <200602252213.k1PMDBP24413@raven.dms.auburn.edu> <4401A98D.3070809@gmx.at> <4401E0F2.7030800@gmx.at> <4401FCBA.1070206@gmx.at> <200602280030.k1S0UDE07149@raven.dms.auburn.edu> <44073C08.1070903@gmx.at> <44086618.10202@gmx.at> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1141530286 12533 80.91.229.2 (5 Mar 2006 03:44:46 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2006 03:44:46 +0000 (UTC) Cc: schwab@suse.de, rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Mar 05 04:44:45 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FFkAk-0003ID-NG for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 05 Mar 2006 04:44:43 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FFkAp-0006nw-U4 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 04 Mar 2006 22:44:47 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1FFg4I-0006Fd-Pz for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 04 Mar 2006 18:21:46 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1FFg4F-0006FP-DJ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 04 Mar 2006 18:21:46 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FFg4F-0006FH-Ap for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 04 Mar 2006 18:21:43 -0500 Original-Received: from [131.204.53.104] (helo=manatee.dms.auburn.edu) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1FFg68-0005je-My; Sat, 04 Mar 2006 18:23:40 -0500 Original-Received: from raven.dms.auburn.edu (raven.dms.auburn.edu [131.204.53.29]) by manatee.dms.auburn.edu (8.13.3+Sun/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k24NLWhK003877; Sat, 4 Mar 2006 17:21:32 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: (from teirllm@localhost) by raven.dms.auburn.edu (8.11.7p1+Sun/8.11.7) id k24NGeZ00520; Sat, 4 Mar 2006 17:16:40 -0600 (CST) X-Authentication-Warning: raven.dms.auburn.edu: teirllm set sender to teirllm@dms.auburn.edu using -f Original-To: rudalics@gmx.at In-reply-to: <44086618.10202@gmx.at> (message from martin rudalics on Fri, 03 Mar 2006 16:51:52 +0100) X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.0.1 (manatee.dms.auburn.edu [131.204.53.104]); Sat, 04 Mar 2006 17:21:32 -0600 (CST) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:51209 Archived-At: I believe that we should just decide whether there is a bug in the regexp in question (which seems _nearly_ certain) and correct it if so. For people who use the Java debugger jdb (I do not know Java), I summarize the problem, so there is no need to read through any of the prior postings in this thread. The regexp in question occurs in `gud-jdb-marker-filter' on line 2155 of progmodes/gud.el and is: "\\(\[[0-9]+\] \\)*\\([a-zA-Z0-9.$_]+\\)\\.[a-zA-Z0-9$_<>(),]+ \ \\(([a-zA-Z0-9.$_]+:\\|line=\\)\\([0-9.,]+\\)" The problem is limited to the \\(\[[0-9]+\] \\)* part at the beginning. According to the Change Logs, this part _seems_ to be used to search/detect classpath information in jdb's output. The regexp as given is valid. But it looks like \\(\[[0-9]+\] \\)* was actualy meant to mean \\(\\[[0-9]+] \\)*, since the author seemingly forgot to double up `\' for Lisp syntax. I do not know Java, so I have no way of knowing what the correct syntax is. According to the current regexp, it consists of a something that looks like a sequence of integers written in base 11, where `[' bizarrely stands for ten, separated and terminated by "] ". The "obvious" correction \\(\\[[0-9]+] \\)* looks for a bunch of decimal digits enclosed in square brackets separated by a space, like "[1276] [0] ". It seems that we should make the "obvious" correction, but it would nevertheless be good if somebody who knows the syntax could confirm this. Sincerely, Luc.