Hello, Kyle Meyer <k...@kyleam.com> writes:
> I've tried to capture the issues in the tests below. The first added > check would fail before 450452de4 (and its replacement, 44ec473c1). The > second check would fail with 44ec473c1, the third with both 450452de4 > and 44ec473c1. Matt's patch would get past the first three checks, but > fail with the last one, due to the issue you note. All these checks > pass if the string-match call is anchored or replaced by the > skip-chars-backward form you suggest. OK. Thank you for the clarification. Then let's push Matt Lundin's solution (with skip-chars-backward), along with your tests! Regards, -- Nicolas Goaziou
