> > glibc tests are better than before :
> > [18] [/b matches [/b -> FAIL
>
> To the best of my knowledge the following are not wildcard matches. If
> they are can you point me to the definition of [:alpha:]?
>
> > [36] *[[:alpha:]]/*[[:alnum:]] does not match a/b -> FAIL
> > [37] *[![:digit:]]*/[![:d-d] does not match a/b -> FAIL
> > [38] *[![:digit:]]*/[[:d-d] does not match a/[ -> FAIL
>
> I think they have a broken test set -- someone confused wildcards and
> regular expressions, or defined the test results backwards.
>
> >From every definition I can find, wildcards included in fnmatch, contain
> > only
>
> *
> ?
> [set]
> [!set]
>
> anything else is an extension that is not in basic shell wildcards or
> something from regular expressions. You need to be careful because a lot
> of documents refer to regular expressions as wildcards, but as you know,
> they are not at all the same thing.
Yes, [[:alpha:]] and other seems to be gnu extensions.
> I have seen some documents that claim that {stringa,stringb} matches
> stringa or stringb, but that seems to be rare, and in any case, it is not
> implemented in the basic BSD fnmatch.
This is implemented in globing functions, not in basics fnmatch.
I will look if i can adapt the bsr fnmatch to support {}.
Bye
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
