[it seems to me Mantis should set Reply-To: and/or
Mail-Followup-To: to [email protected], as it did
before?]

Austin Group Issue Tracker wrote in
 <l6pptcinzl3kuidmhbp0tlfuiskjkmdpkkmroi...@www.austingroupbugs.net>:
 ...
 |https://www.austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1857 
 ...
 | (0007090) dannyniu (reporter) - 2025-03-04 14:56
 | https://www.austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1857#c7090 
 |---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 |For the sake of public record, I'm duplicating mailing list message \
 |to note here
 |that Geoff's step-by-step analysis of my torture testing case (at
 |https://www.austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1857#c6898 ) is inconsistent \
 |with
 |macOS `grep`. Here's my terminal output:
 ...
 |Whether this is indeed a bug in software with no change to the standard \
 |text
 |needed, or that the standard text itself is in error is arguable. 
 ...

I argue in favour of what is the resolution of this bug, and which
reads (is parts):

      If the pattern permits a variable number of matching characters and thus 
there is more than one such sequence starting at that point, the matched 
sequence shall be the longest such sequence for which any minimal repetitions 
(see [xref to 9.4.6]) used in the match have the shortest possible match. For 
example, the BRE "bb*" matches the second to fourth characters of the string 
"abbbc", and the ERE "(wee|week)(knights|night)" matches all ten characters of 
the string "weeknights". However, the ERE "(aaa??)*" matches only the first 
four characters of the string "aaaaa", not all five, because in order to match 
all five, "a??" would match with length one instead of zero; the ERE 
"(aaa??)*|(aaa?)*" matches all five because the longest match is one which does 
not use any minimal repetitions.

      Consistent with the match for the entire regular expression being the 
leftmost and longest for which any minimal repetitions used in the match have 
the shortest possible match, each BRE or ERE in a concatenated set, from left 
to right, shall match the longest possible string for which any minimal 
repetitions used in the match for that BRE or ERE have the shortest possible 
match.

and

      Note that the repetition modifier '?' (<question-mark>) is specified as 
changing the matching behavior for the modified repetition from the leftmost 
longest possible match to the leftmost shortest possible match. This does not 
necessarily give the same result as matching with the least repetitions. For 
example, the ERE "([ab]{6}|a)*?b" matches the first five characters of the 
string "aaaabbbb" as this is the shortest for the minimal repetition "*?". 
Matching with the least repetitions would match the first seven characters by 
using one repetition of "[ab]{6}" instead of four repetitions of "a". This 
distinction is only possible because the alternatives in an ERE alternation are 
chosen according to which gives the longest (or shortest) match. Other
types of regular expression exist (notably in perl, php, and python) where the 
alternatives are tried in order; for those there is no difference between 
longest and most repetitions or between shortest and least repetitions.

I, btw, also posted that (and a bit more) to Mike Haertel of the
GNU project, who is developing the new minrx regular expression
library (and the widely used GNU awk of Aharon Robbins is hooked
to it), after he had written

  +[.] Nowhere else in the standard
  +is the word subpattern defined or used.  Are the subpatterns of ABC:
  +AB and C, A and BC, or A, B, and C?  The standard doesn't say.  If the
  +subpatterns are A, B, and C, then the standard is saying to maximize A at
  +the expense of B and C.  However the only example in corresponding
  +paragraph of the standard has just 2 subpatterns.

, and also quoting parts of

  Geoff Clare said just recently (Thu, 27 Feb 2025 10:13:14 +0000):

I also apologise for not having intellectually penetrated the
notable differences in between POSIX EREs and perl etc regular
expressions back in 2013, when i was opening

  https://www.austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=793

to include "shortest possible match"es.  I was coming from
programming solutions, and certain problems can just not be solved
with regular expressions except by matching against shorted
possible matches.

Ciao,

--steffen
|
|Der Kragenbaer,                The moon bear,
|der holt sich munter           he cheerfully and one by one
|einen nach dem anderen runter  wa.ks himself off
|(By Robert Gernhardt)

  • [1003.1(20... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
  • [1003.1(20... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
  • [1003.1(20... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
    • Re: [... Niu Danny via austin-group-l at The Open Group
      • R... Niu Danny via austin-group-l at The Open Group
      • R... Niu Danny via austin-group-l at The Open Group
        • ... Hans Ã…berg via austin-group-l at The Open Group
        • ... Geoff Clare via austin-group-l at The Open Group
  • [1003.1(20... Austin Group Issue Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
  • [1003.1(20... Austin Group Issue Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
  • Re: [1003.... Steffen Nurpmeso via austin-group-l at The Open Group
    • Re: [... Niu Danny via austin-group-l at The Open Group
  • [1003.1(20... Austin Group Issue Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
  • [1003.1(20... Austin Group Issue Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
  • [1003.1(20... Austin Group Issue Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
  • [1003.1(20... Austin Group Issue Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
  • [1003.1(20... Austin Group Issue Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
  • [1003.1(20... Austin Group Issue Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
  • [1003.1(20... Austin Group Issue Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group

Reply via email to