From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Gregory Heytings Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: grep: RE error in ^*** ADVICE-ON-FAILURE-: repetition-operator operand invalid Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2022 12:49:05 +0000 Message-ID: <518ded72c37a0afa121d@heytings.org> References: <87fsef9pms.fsf.ref@yahoo.com> <87fsef9pms.fsf@yahoo.com> <518ded72c3aa09fcd1c1@heytings.org> <87bkp39mxk.fsf@yahoo.com> <877czr9msv.fsf@yahoo.com> <28B9B7EC-BC77-435B-BE80-F4B39F0BB4E7@acm.org> <518ded72c3755a94a704@heytings.org> <67089852-8265-4EE5-8234-F2F135A60949@acm.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="11981"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: Po Lu , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: =?UTF-8?Q?Mattias_Engdeg=C3=A5rd?= Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Nov 19 13:49:41 2022 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1owNHw-0002v6-Lz for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 19 Nov 2022 13:49:40 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1owNHa-00050Q-66; Sat, 19 Nov 2022 07:49:18 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1owNHT-00050C-V5 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 19 Nov 2022 07:49:16 -0500 Original-Received: from heytings.org ([95.142.160.155]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1owNHR-0007aK-Om for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 19 Nov 2022 07:49:11 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=heytings.org; s=20220101; t=1668862146; bh=6OMTw2xkFF9v+6mqyML/Jx3ZBI/rW2yLQRgYR6VBQJc=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:References:From; b=FtvCCj/uFmXVfvphBXgvwIbZHtWivPuSFYukfR8p5MCyfltsFc/jbmHqDe0HyQxS6 aJ7lxLiEFwRmrb5Wx7ZJXDT2mMT5Ope64y8yaNJOqa8/iIqn63SuXeg/CwJQ837VkD XmjrdmQnN/pcL2xjqKVWvPE/EAFTCEyE7GnxwUtUe0vKe+H4TDsHLhFGht5bGx8Ahx QZoWhxT0nyup4lIvGKtiO7beTD+ZHBPCcUypi9LaPOH/c6f8QK9K1npkaUFJFyh6YJ wpCLV6wei0UxkBM3s5bzxZKm/Pt1wW0dXv18SbooRs7PyuZcSAyCfhif+JHOuXeDVd Fr6QU4jZZVm8A== In-Reply-To: <67089852-8265-4EE5-8234-F2F135A60949@acm.org> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=95.142.160.155; envelope-from=gregory@heytings.org; helo=heytings.org X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:300174 Archived-At: >> I just checked, it was not incorrect. POSIX says that in BREs the '*' >> is special, except wen used: >> >> - in a bracket expression >> - as the first character of an entire BRE (after an initial '^', if any) >> - as the first character of a subexpression (after an initial '^', if any) > > That just means that the first of the three asterisks is literal. The > other two are special and indicate repetition of the literal asterisk. > Hmmm, you're correct. '^**' would be correct (matching zero or more asterisks), but '^***' is not, because POSIX also says that "multiple adjacent duplication symbols produces undefined results". > > (And even if the three asterisks were interpreted literally, it would be > bad style.) > It's better if the expression is correctly matched by more grep's, indeed. Anyway, bug closed.