On Wed, 01 Sep 2010 16:55:25 -0600 Eric Blake wrote: > > would this mean an implementation could add a new<regex.h> error code?
> It may indeed be worthwhile to reword the bug 305 proposal to allow an > implementation to extend <regex.h> in that manner, although it is not > strictly necessary (GNU grep's warning was implemented without the need > of a new <regex.h> error code). on this (at&t ast) side just about all things RE are handled by <regex.h> mostly because we loathe diffs between RE based utilities e.g., if ast grep hits an RE error then sed ed ... will too
