Hello,
Neil Jerram <neiljer...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 at 08:14, Nicolas Goaziou <m...@nicolasgoaziou.fr> wrote:
>> The regexp for bracket links could be, in its simple (!) form:
>>
>> \[\[\(.*?[^\\]\(?:\\\)*\)\]\(?:\[\([^\000]+?\)\]\)?\]
>
> [then a bit later]
>> Small update, in its string form now:
>>
>>
>> "\\[\\[\\([^\000]*?[^\\]\\(\\\\\\\\\\)*\\)\\]\\(?:\\[\\([^\000]+?\\)\\]\\)?\\]"
>
> Is [^\000] the only (or best) way of saying "any character, including
> newlines"?
There is also "\(.\|\n\)", or "[[:ascii:][:nonascii:]]".
> Could there be actual NUL characters in the document?
Good question. I used [^\000] out of habit. You are right, "\(.\|\n\)"
is more robust.
So, the new challenger is:
"\\[\\[\\(\\(?:.\\|\n\\)*?[^\\]\\(\\\\\\\\\\)*\\)\\]\\(?:\\[\\(\\(?:.\\|\n\\)+?\\)\\]\\)?\\]"
Beautiful.
The commented rx equivalent would be:
(seq "["
;; URI part: match group 1.
"["
(group
(*? anything)
;; Allow an even number of backslashes before the closing bracket.
(not (any "\\"))
(zero-or-more (group "\\\\")))
"]"
;; Description (optional): match group 2.
(opt "[" (group (+? anything)) "]")
"]")
> \( # begin group 3
> ? # don't understand
> :\[ # literal :[
[...]
> but there's at least a ? that I don't understand, and I'm afraid I'm
> not seeing how it's useful.
\(?: ... \) is a shy group.
> If you think it works, I'm happy to defer to your judgement on that!
> Although I suggested the idea, I don't know Org nearly well enough to
> be sure that I haven't missed problems;
We are solving the problem with a regexp. What bad things could happen? ;)
Regards,
--
Nicolas Goaziou
