From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: taylanbayirli@gmail.com (Taylan Ulrich =?utf-8?Q?Bay=C4=B1rl=C4=B1?= =?utf-8?Q?=2FKammer?=) Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Add reference to the lack of "non-greedy" variants Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 20:25:46 +0100 Message-ID: <87zjka3z2d.fsf@taylan.uni.cx> References: <1395804441-29214-1-git-send-email-dfsr@riseup.net> <1395804441-29214-2-git-send-email-dfsr@riseup.net> <87y4zwekh0.fsf@taylan.uni.cx> <87ppl8b8xw.fsf@nebulosa.milkyway> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1396034761 17179 80.91.229.3 (28 Mar 2014 19:26:01 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 19:26:01 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org To: "Diogo F. S. Ramos" Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Mar 28 20:26:09 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 1WTcPo-0002DJ-7w for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 20:26:08 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:35640 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WTcPn-0002Ey-MJ for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 15:26:07 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:33843) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WTcPd-0001x9-QQ for guile-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 15:26:03 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WTcPT-0007oL-LM for guile-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 15:25:57 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-ee0-x234.google.com ([2a00:1450:4013:c00::234]:44467) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WTcPT-0007mQ-Ev for guile-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 15:25:47 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-ee0-f52.google.com with SMTP id e49so4345240eek.25 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 12:25:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:user-agent:date :message-id:mime-version:content-type; bh=nXjWmI4gKwMqxYao9/dlVwHdYzc9flkkAFU6nM3VWec=; b=YFo9ml9EWoA4hz+Cm3GIxVy8zKfyPmQfFyi88jGb5nnXj3nuk5Kr+rvHTMB/gH2kkx fsx4aUYxrfPz5yFFdHGJYfVcTjsLQYFMFKwgLFEIJQ0A99jg8Gm3kQTlo5DZajvTB2ZT hOJUdDHLXn4lXtMTnL54mOFKjLWulfnj2lrwvtQvkaygFaztXeq9YePX5Fr6f/ZH7vqG YphGt7C8KdnpADccusl/p7TZNxbecG/AwtaVocj0tRwCduQrZolTcue6RGkV44OzDqJZ bsK/od9+O/vrCHL6osHFTbb26mYATHqkUofcqIQNKSbGO+chdM+FZsRRulLc7TeID42w f6dA== X-Received: by 10.14.215.9 with SMTP id d9mr361150eep.64.1396034745678; Fri, 28 Mar 2014 12:25:45 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from taylan.uni.cx (p5B15D603.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [91.21.214.3]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id m42sm13584171eex.21.2014.03.28.12.25.43 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 28 Mar 2014 12:25:44 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87ppl8b8xw.fsf@nebulosa.milkyway> (Diogo F. S. Ramos's message of "Thu, 27 Mar 2014 00:46:03 -0300") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (berkeley-unix) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2a00:1450:4013:c00::234 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:17032 Archived-At: "Diogo F. S. Ramos" writes: > 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. I'd rather say that *both* the mention of those characters, and the mention of non-greediness being unsupported, are special cases. :-) Maybe we should just remove both and only provide a link to the specification of POSIX ERE, or clarify that "POSIX extended regular expressions" are a specific type of regexp (and not the possible misinterpretation which is "an (ad-hoc) extended version of POSIX regexps") so that users can search for documentation on them by themselves. (Many Unix-like systems have a man-page for regexps; IIRC GNU+Linux distros tend to have a "regex" man-page which describe both POSIX BRE (Basic RE) and ERE, and I see the three BSDs all have an "re_format" man-page (linked to by the regex(3) man-page) which also describes those two.) By the way I see that the mention of POSIX ERE happens only in section 6.15.1 and not directly in the intro 6.15, which instead misleadingly links to Emacs regexps. Also, I never expect non-greediness support from regexps, because I've "grown up" as a Unix-like OS user and shell scripter, so it's POSIX BRE (sed, grep) and ERE (grep, awk) for me. This probably goes for many people. > 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. Like I said, "POSIX ERE" is an absolute specification. We might still want to distribute a copy of it so users can access it more easily, but on the other hand the manual implies that the supported regexp format actually depends on what regexp library Guile was compiled with. (Or am I misinterpreting paragraph 2 of 6.15 plus paragraph 1 of 6.15.1 which says "by default"?) My proposal would be to remove the Emacs link in 6.15, add a paragraph that has a sole, clear mention of POSIX ERE, and remove the first paragraph of 6.15.1, or keep its first sentence because it's crucial information so the redundancy with the preceding section doesn't hurt. Taylan