Ahhh. Likely we can catch this at build time via configure On Jan 15, 2014, at 8:15 AM, Graham Leggett <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 15 Jan 2014, at 3:04 PM, Jim Jagielski <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Sounds good to me :) > > Had to do some digging to get my head around the impact. > > If the PCRE_DUPNAMES is missing, the list of names of variables is shorter > than the list of variables defined, and you could have a variable value > applied to the wrong name. I think we can live with this as long as we > clearly document that people should expect undefined behaviour on older > versions of pcre if they use duplicate names inside regexes. > > Example: > > /(?<sitename>[^/]+)/(?<sitename>[^/]+)/(?<othername>[^/]+) > > In older pcre, the second captured value "sitename" will be applied to > "othername". > > Regards, > Graham > -- >
