On Wed, Dec 03, 2014 at 04:07:02PM -0700, Karl Williamson wrote:
> I can easily change the test to generate that warning. But it still isn't
> clear to me whether we are wanting to test line numbers for any regex, or
> just the ??{} ones. Given the other tests in this file, and that the other
> message is already tested elsewhere, I would think the latter, which is
> where DaveM comes in.
The test is specifically for a ??{foo} included within another regex,
but where the warning is triggered by something in the pattern other than
the foo part, and the warning should appear to to come from the other
part, not the line that defines the ??{foo}.
In other words it's testing that on return from executing the included
foo sub-pattern, that state is correctly restored.
--
I don't want to achieve immortality through my work...
I want to achieve it through not dying.
-- Woody Allen
