From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Tim Landscheidt Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: Numbered regexps throw invalid regex error Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 11:52:45 +0000 Organization: Message-ID: References: <4F203A13.20105@easy-emacs.de> <4F205FC5.90106@easy-emacs.de> <4F206810.7080001@easy-emacs.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1327579355 1030 80.91.229.12 (26 Jan 2012 12:02:35 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 12:02:35 +0000 (UTC) To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jan 26 13:02:25 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RqO1w-0003vc-2V for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 13:02:16 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:37639 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RqO1v-0003jI-Lu for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 07:02:15 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:45274) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RqO1l-00034k-UN for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 07:02:11 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RqNtG-0002bg-FS for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 06:53:28 -0500 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:34601) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RqNtG-0002bM-AI for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 06:53:18 -0500 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RqNtB-0007SL-Kq for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 12:53:13 +0100 Original-Received: from g231144167.adsl.alicedsl.de ([92.231.144.167]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 12:53:13 +0100 Original-Received: from tim by g231144167.adsl.alicedsl.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 26 Jan 2012 12:53:13 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Mail-Followup-To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-Lines: 27 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: g231144167.adsl.alicedsl.de Mail-Copies-To: never User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:k96ym+YQWHInMmO3ZhwWs3JxdBY= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 80.91.229.12 X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:83569 Archived-At: Tom wrote: >> > There is no mention of an automatic assignment. It says the last one >> > will win, so assigning a number which is already used for >> > a previous group should work. >> would consider it a bug then - at least a docu bug > I don't think it's a doc bug. The whole point of the feature is that > you can assign constant numbers to groups, so they don't change if you > add/remove parens. > If it can suddenly throw a regexp error, just because you've added > a paren around an other paren then it pretty much defeats the > prupose of the feature. I'd agree that the documentation should be more verbose, but I don't think that your argument that it'd be a bug is va- lid. If someone added another pair of parentheses around "a\\(?1:b\\)", either they don't want to refer to it, thus using "\\(?:", or if they want to refer to it, they have to think about how to do that anyhow. How would you rephrase the documentation so that the cur- rent behaviour is more comprehensibly described? Tim