> "Diogo F. S. Ramos" <d...@riseup.net> writes: > >> While describing special characters, remind the reader that >> "non-greedy" variants are not supported. They might not be familiar >> with POSIX extended regular expression and expect it to work. > > Going by that logic, might they not expect a lot more? (Say, if all > they know about regexps is PCRE, for example.) Intuition says that it's > enough to specify "POSIX extended regular expressions", because they're > a very clearly defined type of regexp. (Don't be fooled by the word > "extended", POSIX rigorously defines a type of regexp called "extended > regular expressions", aka ERE.)
The documentation is already pointing out that some characters are special, so adding the "non-greedy" observation is not special in this case and IMO it's an expected feature from regexps. Your observation makes me think I didn't go far enough. If users expect Perl regexps, we should warn them that Guile's is not. Ultimately, I think Guile should document its own regexp syntax. These changes have been inspired by the article "Teach, Don't Tell" [1], and its accompanying texts. Someone posted it at #guile, but I can't remember their name now, I'm sorry. [1] http://stevelosh.com/blog/2013/09/teach-dont-tell/
