A NOTE has been added to this issue. ====================================================================== https://www.austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1857 ====================================================================== Reported By: dannyniu Assigned To: ====================================================================== Project: 1003.1(2024)/Issue8 Issue ID: 1857 Category: Base Definitions and Headers Type: Error Severity: Objection Priority: normal Status: New Name: DannyNiu/NJF Organization: Individual User Reference: Section: 9.1 Regular Expression Definitions # and others. Page Number: 179-180 and others Line Number: 6366-6368 and others. Interp Status: --- Final Accepted Text: ====================================================================== Date Submitted: 2024-09-14 12:54 UTC Last Modified: 2024-09-25 15:08 UTC ====================================================================== Summary: Several problems with the new "lazy" regex quantifier. ======================================================================
---------------------------------------------------------------------- (0006886) dannyniu (reporter) - 2024-09-25 15:08 https://www.austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1857#c6886 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Re Note: 6885. I actaully asked about this on StackOverflow before resorting to issue tracker as no one seem to understand the situation in enough detail to make informed statements. One of the comments said straightforwardly that the lazy qualifier applies to the immediate preceding repetition (i.e. rather than recursively to subpattern matches as implied as necessary to make the match shortest by Geoff's proposed wording) by echoing my words in the question. Relevant URL: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/78984645/regarding-posix-eres-new-repetition-modifier#comment139266744_78984645 If a wording must be specified, it must be clear & unambiguous & consistent. As a torture test for any potential wording, I propose testing the wording with the following: - regex: [0-9](((((([0-9][a-z]*[0-9])*?)*)*?)*)*?)*[0-9] - string to be matched: 12abc34def56ghi78jkl90mnop12qrst34uvw56xyz78 The reason I propose this regex, is that you have to have some rules to resolve the ambiguity of recursively, alternatingly, nested lazy and greedy quantifier. And I'd like to set this as a challenge. Finally, I suggest doing a survey on GitHub, on the use of lazy quantifier in Python-language projects if anyone still see value in keeping interoperability with Python users. Issue History Date Modified Username Field Change ====================================================================== 2024-09-14 12:54 dannyniu New Issue 2024-09-14 12:54 dannyniu Name => DannyNiu/NJF 2024-09-14 12:54 dannyniu Organization => Individual 2024-09-14 12:54 dannyniu Section => 9.1 Regular Expression Definitions # and others. 2024-09-14 12:54 dannyniu Page Number => 179-180 and others 2024-09-14 12:54 dannyniu Line Number => 6366-6368 and others. 2024-09-20 08:05 dannyniu Note Added: 0006879 2024-09-20 08:07 dannyniu Note Edited: 0006879 2024-09-20 08:13 dannyniu Note Edited: 0006879 2024-09-23 08:56 geoffclare Note Added: 0006880 2024-09-24 10:46 geoffclare Note Added: 0006881 2024-09-24 10:46 geoffclare Note Edited: 0006881 2024-09-24 11:54 dannyniu Note Added: 0006882 2024-09-24 12:08 dannyniu Note Edited: 0006882 2024-09-24 12:09 dannyniu Note Edited: 0006882 2024-09-24 12:11 dannyniu Note Edited: 0006882 2024-09-24 12:12 dannyniu Note Edited: 0006882 2024-09-24 14:04 geoffclare Note Added: 0006883 2024-09-25 08:28 dannyniu Note Added: 0006884 2024-09-25 08:30 dannyniu Note Edited: 0006884 2024-09-25 08:33 dannyniu Note Edited: 0006884 2024-09-25 08:42 dannyniu Note Edited: 0006884 2024-09-25 08:43 dannyniu Note Edited: 0006884 2024-09-25 11:36 dannyniu Note Edited: 0006884 2024-09-25 13:17 geoffclare Note Added: 0006885 2024-09-25 15:08 dannyniu Note Added: 0006886 ======================================================================
