A NOTE has been added to this issue. 
====================================================================== 
https://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:              2024-09-23 08:56 UTC
====================================================================== 
Summary:                    Several problems with the new "lazy" regex
quantifier.
====================================================================== 

---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 (0006880) geoffclare (manager) - 2024-09-23 08:56
 https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1857#c6880 
---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> For quantifiers without the `?` lazy quantifier, the most number of
possible repetition is the fittest in terms of length; likewise, for
quantifiers with the `?` lazy quantifier, the least number of possible
repetition is the fittest in terms of length.

This would change the established-for-decades "longest" requirement to
"most repetitions", which is not the same thing. And it turns out that on
macOS the '?' modifier does not change to matching the least repetitions,
it is shortest match; the re_format(7) man page is wrong. Tested using the
program at the end of https://posix.rhansen.org/p/2020-11-09 with
REG_MINIMAL removed:
<pre>$ ./a.out '([ab]{6}|a)*?b' aaaabbbb
regexec() returned 0
rm_so 0, rm_eo 5</pre>
(Least repetitions would give rm_eo 7.)

Same test with grep, using -o to see what matched:
<pre>$ echo aaaabbbb | grep -E -o '([ab]{6}|a)*?b'
aaaab
b
b
b</pre>
This behaviour makes sense as the whole point of REG_MINIMAL and the '?'
modifier is to change to the opposite greediness, and the opposite of
longest is shortest. Having the default as longest and REG_MINIMAL/'?' as
least repetitions would produce the same output in the above tests with and
without the '?', making them pointless in such cases. 

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                          
======================================================================


  • [1003.1(2024... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
  • [1003.1(2024... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
  • [1003.1(2024... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
  • [1003.1(2024... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
  • [1003.1(2024... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
  • [1003.1(2024... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
  • [1003.1(2024... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
  • [1003.1(2024... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
  • [1003.1(2024... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
  • [1003.1(2024... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
  • [1003.1(2024... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
  • [1003.1(2024... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
  • [1003.1(2024... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
  • [1003.1(2024... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
  • [1003.1(2024... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
  • [1003.1(2024... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
  • [1003.1(2024... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
  • [1003.1(2024... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
    • Re: [10... Hans Ã…berg via austin-group-l at The Open Group
  • [1003.1(2024... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
  • [1003.1(2024... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group

Reply via email to