From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Giorgos Keramidas Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: minor question for lispref/searching.texi,v -r1.69 Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 14:19:04 +0200 Message-ID: <20060308121904.GA26487@flame.pc> References: <20060308105437.GA1717@flame.pc> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1141820474 32371 80.91.229.2 (8 Mar 2006 12:21:14 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 12:21:14 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Mar 08 13:21:07 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 1FGxem-0008RD-T3 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 08 Mar 2006 13:20:45 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FGxek-0002Tk-Vd for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 08 Mar 2006 07:20:43 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1FGxdd-0002Ig-Mj for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Mar 2006 07:19:33 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1FGxda-0002DN-Fx for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Mar 2006 07:19:32 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FGxdZ-0002BM-Ri for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Mar 2006 07:19:30 -0500 Original-Received: from [62.1.205.36] (helo=igloo.linux.gr) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA:32) (Exim 4.52) id 1FGxgP-0000wi-61 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Mar 2006 07:22:25 -0500 Original-Received: from flame.pc (aris.bedc.ondsl.gr [62.103.39.226]) (authenticated bits=128) by igloo.linux.gr (8.13.5/8.13.5/Debian-3) with ESMTP id k28CJFCW008992 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 8 Mar 2006 14:19:16 +0200 Original-Received: from flame.pc (flame [127.0.0.1]) by flame.pc (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k28CJ4Xd026494; Wed, 8 Mar 2006 14:19:04 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Original-Received: (from keramida@localhost) by flame.pc (8.13.4/8.13.4/Submit) id k28CJ4Vs026493; Wed, 8 Mar 2006 14:19:04 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Original-To: teirllm@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060308105437.GA1717@flame.pc> X-Hellug-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-Hellug-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-3.375, required 5, autolearn=not spam, ALL_TRUSTED -1.80, AWL 0.82, BAYES_00 -2.60, DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE 0.20) X-Hellug-MailScanner-From: keramida@ceid.upatras.gr 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:51360 Archived-At: On 2006-03-08 12:54, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > Revision 1.69 of lispref/searching.texi includes: > > % +In practice, most @samp{]} that occur in regular expressions close a > % +character alternative and hence are special. However, occasionally a > % +regular expression may try to match a complex pattern of literal > % +@samp{[} and @samp{]}. In such situations, it sometimes may be > % +necessary to carefully parse the regexp from the start to determine > % +which square brackets enclose a character alternative. For example, > % +@code{[^][]]}, consists of the complemented character alternative > % +@code{[^][]}, which matches any single character that is not a square > % +bracket, followed by a literal @samp{]}. > > I think that the sample of the second paragraph doesn't match the text > description, or am I parsing the regexp incorrectly? > > [^][] > > This doesn't match ``the complemented character alternative "[^][]"'' or > ``any single character that is not a squarebracket, followed by a > literal "]"''. > > Shouldn't the regexp be ``[^]]]'' for this to be a correct description? Hum. Nevermind. Not enough coffee yet, I guess. I just noticed the character I've missed.