Jim Jagielski wrote: > Just looking for verification here ;)
No worries. > > Thx! > On Mar 19, 2014, at 12:46 PM, Jim Jagielski <[email protected]> wrote: > >> As noted, from how I understand it, currently we allow it to >> build BUT the behavior is not as expected or designed, since >> the expected behavior *requires* PCRE_DUPNAMES. If we require >> PCRE_DUPNAMES then we require it, right? >> > > Correct. As far as I remember Grahams proposal was to put the different behaviors in the documentation as the behavior only differs in specific cases (same capture name used more then once). So IMHO the feature still makes sense even without PCRE_DUPNAMES available. To be honest that documentation part somehow felt through the cracks :-). Regards Rüdiger
