To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=64368
------- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Sep 14 12:05:32 -0700
2006 -------
JES->ER: I'm glad we are in vehement agreement ;-)
I only wished to take issue with your statement:
> The use of constructs like [:digit:]? or ([:digit:]) is undefined.
> In fact a better implementation would not match anything there.
If I understand what you are saying, I don't understand what evidence you have
to support this statement. As far as I can tell, these are both perfectly
reasonable constructs that match simple character classes.
$ echo "Digits: 1234" | perl -ne '@m = m/[:digit:]?/g; print("m:(@m)\n")'
m:( i g i t : )
$ echo "Digits: 1234" | perl -ne '@m = m/([:digit:])/g; print("m:(@m)\n")'
m:(i g i t :)
The important point here is that they DON'T match digits, which you clearly
understand as well.
What is the value in fixing the problem originally reported in this issue, when
OOo's entire implementation of named classes is not in line with the POSIX
standard or with common practice?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from
Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments.
http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
