Štěpán Němec <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Don't get me wrong, fundamentally I'm with you on that it
>> constitutes what in MySQL would be called a "gotcha" - some-
>> thing totally unexpected, yet somewhere documented.
> No it's not documented (definitely not clearly and not enough, which is
> really the same as not at all), see my bug report.
It is, cf. the docstring for re-search-backward.
>> But I disagree with you to consider this a *bug*, as it
>> *is* documented and it is logistically impossible to change
>> Emacs' behaviour in this regard without assessing whether
>> this breaks potentially quazillions lines of code. And I
^^^^^^^^^^^
>> don't think that the developers consider it a bug either.
> That's ridiculous. Are you saying that making _backward_ regexp search
> _really_ do backward, not forward matching is going to break
> "quazillions lines of code"? Not that I really care, but I very much
> doubt that. What's much more likely is that it would _fix_ both known
> and unknown breakages and unexpected behaviours, such as the one that
> started this thread.
No, I haven't said that it is going to break them, but that
it has the potential to do so.
> Anyway, if you want to continue arguing about this please use the bug
> thread.
I don't want to continue and not to be misquoted.
Tim
_______________________________________________
info-gnus-english mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-gnus-english
