From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Diogo F. S. Ramos" Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Add reference to the lack of "non-greedy" variants Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 00:46:03 -0300 Message-ID: <87ppl8b8xw.fsf@nebulosa.milkyway> References: <1395804441-29214-1-git-send-email-dfsr@riseup.net> <1395804441-29214-2-git-send-email-dfsr@riseup.net> <87y4zwekh0.fsf@taylan.uni.cx> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1395891981 15903 80.91.229.3 (27 Mar 2014 03:46:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 03:46:21 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org To: taylanbayirli@gmail.com (Taylan Ulrich =?utf-8?Q?=22Bay=C4=B1rl=C4=B1?= =?utf-8?Q?=2FKammer=22?=) Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Mar 27 04:46:31 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WT1Gx-0000BP-Bt for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 04:46:31 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:51543 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WT1Gx-0003DR-0b for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2014 23:46:31 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47007) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WT1Gq-0003C0-UU for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2014 23:46:29 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WT1Gm-0004dC-Cm for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2014 23:46:24 -0400 Original-Received: from mx1.riseup.net ([198.252.153.129]:51135) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WT1Gm-0004cv-7a for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 26 Mar 2014 23:46:20 -0400 Original-Received: from fulvetta.riseup.net (fulvetta-pn.riseup.net [10.0.1.75]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.riseup.net", Issuer "Gandi Standard SSL CA" (not verified)) by mx1.riseup.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D16564DD65; Wed, 26 Mar 2014 20:46:18 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (Authenticated sender: dfsr@fulvetta.riseup.net) with ESMTPSA id EAFB83BD In-Reply-To: <87y4zwekh0.fsf@taylan.uni.cx> ("Taylan Ulrich =?utf-8?Q?=5C=22Bay=C4=B1rl=C4=B1=2FKammer=5C=22=22's?= message of "Wed, 26 Mar 2014 22:08:43 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.98.1 at mx1 X-Virus-Status: Clean X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 198.252.153.129 X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:17031 Archived-At: > "Diogo F. S. Ramos" writes: > >> While describing special characters, remind the reader that >> "non-greedy" variants are not supported. They might not be familiar >> with POSIX extended regular expression and expect it to work. > > Going by that logic, might they not expect a lot more? (Say, if all > they know about regexps is PCRE, for example.) Intuition says that it's > enough to specify "POSIX extended regular expressions", because they're > a very clearly defined type of regexp. (Don't be fooled by the word > "extended", POSIX rigorously defines a type of regexp called "extended > regular expressions", aka ERE.) The documentation is already pointing out that some characters are special, so adding the "non-greedy" observation is not special in this case and IMO it's an expected feature from regexps. Your observation makes me think I didn't go far enough. If users expect Perl regexps, we should warn them that Guile's is not. Ultimately, I think Guile should document its own regexp syntax. These changes have been inspired by the article "Teach, Don't Tell" [1], and its accompanying texts. Someone posted it at #guile, but I can't remember their name now, I'm sorry. [1] http://stevelosh.com/blog/2013/09/teach-dont-tell/