On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 05:59:43 +0200 Roland Mainz wrote: > Grrr... ([^><]+)+? is the correct pattern... I wish ksh would've hit > me with an error message (which may not be allowed by the standard) or > at least refuse to match anything with a faulty pattern like that...
[^[><]] was only faulty because it did what it was supposed to do, not what you intended in particular the posix shell is intentionally lenient on non-matched [ and ] chars these are two valid patterns a[b c]d that happen to match literal [ and ] respectively > Sorry for the mess... ;-( > ... AFAIK the only real bug may then be > https://mailman.research.att.com/pipermail/ast-developers/2012q2/001402.html > (maybe the regex engine was confused by the faulty pattern ?) re that mail - yes, it didn't work because of the malformed [^...] but even for ERE it was syntactically correct so again it was not regex that was confused you can test any RE with $INSTALLROOT/src/cmd/re/testregex on this test line (preserve the tabs) if there were a regcomp() syntax error testregex would complain -- E (?:([^[><]]+)+?) x] (0,2)(0,2) -- all interested in (weird|complicated|obscure) REs should look at the testregex input data src/cmd/re/*.dat -- and please feel free to add to that corpus _______________________________________________ ast-developers mailing list ast-developers@research.att.com https://mailman.research.att.com/mailman/listinfo/ast-developers