From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel,gmane.emacs.pretest.bugs Subject: Re: Should not * be greedy in a regexp? Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 20:12:35 +0100 Message-ID: <472CC823.4050509@gmail.com> References: <472CB6AB.9020301@gmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1194117195 14666 80.91.229.12 (3 Nov 2007 19:13:15 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 19:13:15 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org To: Andreas Schwab Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Nov 03 20:13:16 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IoOQl-0006y2-1N for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 03 Nov 2007 20:13:15 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IoOQa-0005Oh-F7 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 03 Nov 2007 15:13:04 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IoOQX-0005Oc-7Y for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Nov 2007 15:13:01 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IoOQU-0005OQ-Mv for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Nov 2007 15:12:59 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IoOQU-0005ON-IJ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Nov 2007 15:12:58 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1IoOQU-00015X-Ev for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Nov 2007 15:12:58 -0400 Original-Received: from mail.gnu.org ([199.232.76.166] helo=mx10.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1IoOQU-0007Fp-5W for emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Nov 2007 15:12:58 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1IoOQR-00014n-OI for emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Nov 2007 15:12:58 -0400 Original-Received: from ch-smtp01.sth.basefarm.net ([80.76.149.212]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1IoOQR-00014N-7F for emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Nov 2007 15:12:55 -0400 Original-Received: from c83-254-148-228.bredband.comhem.se ([83.254.148.228]:59629 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by ch-smtp01.sth.basefarm.net with esmtp (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1IoOQP-0007g2-5Y; Sat, 03 Nov 2007 20:12:53 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.6) Gecko/20070728 Thunderbird/2.0.0.6 Mnenhy/0.7.5.666 In-Reply-To: X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 071103-0, 2007-11-03), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Originating-IP: 83.254.148.228 X-Scan-Result: No virus found in message 1IoOQP-0007g2-5Y. X-Scan-Signature: ch-smtp01.sth.basefarm.net 1IoOQP-0007g2-5Y 655ff68afa2e5aab7f1f5d1d7b60191f X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6? (barebone, rare!) X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) 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:82442 gmane.emacs.pretest.bugs:20233 Archived-At: Andreas Schwab wrote: > Andreas Schwab writes: > >> "Lennart Borgman (gmail)" writes: >> >>> Starting from >>> >>> emacs -Q >>> >>> Put this in the *scratch* buffer and eval it: >>> >>> (let* ((mod-regx+ "\\(\\(?:[CSM]-\\)+\\)") >>> (mod-regx* "\\(\\(?:[CSM]-\\)*\\)") >>> (str "") >>> (m+ (when (string-match mod-regx+ str) >>> (match-string 0 str))) >>> (m* (when (string-match mod-regx* str) >>> (match-string 0 str)))) >>> (lwarn 't :warning "m+=%s, m*=%s" m+ m*)) >>> >>> I get >>> >>> Warning (t): m+=C-S-, m*= >>> >>> Should not both this regexp give the same result here? It looks to me like >>> * is treated as *? - ie non-greedy. >> The regexp matches the empty string. > > ... at the start of the string, I wanted to add. Ah, thanks.