Russ Allbery <[email protected]> writes: > Ah, yes. This is where regexes try a bit too hard to make a match. > > trap\s+(?:([\"\'])(?:[^\'\\]|\\.)*\1\s+)?[\"\']*[1-9] > > will work a bit better, I think, although I haven't run that through a > test suite. > > Interestingly, though, I can't duplicate this. That regex does not > appear to match that string so far as I can tell from some experiments. > Maybe I messed something up....
I did. The current regex does match that string, and my modified version doesn't. The only thing I'm not sure of is if it matches the other things it's supposed to. -- Russ Allbery ([email protected]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
