On 9/21/19 5:34 AM, Ilkka Virta wrote:
> On 21.9. 03:12, hk wrote:
>> Thanks for the reply. I was wrong in my report. It does match values like
>> aab and aab in its original form.
>
> In some systems, yes. (It does that on my Debian, but doesn't work at all
> on my Mac.)
>
>> It is
On 9/20/19 8:12 PM, hk wrote:
> What is wrong is the description `zero or one instances of 'a''. But if we
> correct the right hand side word to be `[[:space:]]*(a)?b' that it does
> match what the description says.(the parenthese around `a' could be omitted).
Yeah, that's the typo.
> I was
On 21.9. 21:55, Dmitry Goncharov wrote:
On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 12:34:39PM +0300, Ilkka Virta wrote:
[[:space:]]*?(a)b isn't a well-defined POSIX ERE:
9.4.6 EREs Matching Multiple Characters
The behavior of multiple adjacent duplication symbols ( '+', '*', '?',
and intervals)
On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 12:34:39PM +0300, Ilkka Virta wrote:
> [[:space:]]*?(a)b isn't a well-defined POSIX ERE:
>
>9.4.6 EREs Matching Multiple Characters
>
>The behavior of multiple adjacent duplication symbols ( '+', '*', '?',
>and intervals) produces undefined results.
>
>
Thanks. Have learnt a lot from your replies.
On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 5:34 PM Ilkka Virta wrote:
> On 21.9. 03:12, hk wrote:
> > Thanks for the reply. I was wrong in my report. It does match values like
> > aab and aab in its original form.
>
> In some systems, yes. (It does that on my
On 21.9. 03:12, hk wrote:
Thanks for the reply. I was wrong in my report. It does match values like
aab and aab in its original form.
In some systems, yes. (It does that on my Debian, but doesn't work at
all on my Mac.)
It is syntatically correct as a regular expression.
Thanks for the reply. I was wrong in my report. It does match values like
aab and aab in its original form.
What is wrong is the description `zero or one instances of 'a''. But if we
correct the right hand side word to be `[[:space:]]*(a)?b' that it does
match what the description
On 20.9. 21:39, Chet Ramey wrote:
The portion of the manual before the example explains BASH_REMATCH and
BASH_REMATCH[0]. It also says "a sequence of characters in the value..."
when describing the pattern.
Yeah, though the preceding paragraph contains both the general
description of the
On 9/20/19 9:30 AM, Ilkka Virta wrote:
> On 20.9. 15:48, Greg Wooledge wrote:
>> but after the regex-glob-thing, it says:
>>
>> That means values like ‘aab’ and ‘ aab’ will match
>>
>> So there's a shift in intent between a? and a+ in what's supposed to be
>> a regular expression. Although
On 9/20/19 1:40 AM, hk wrote:
> Bash Version: 5.0
> Patch Level: 0
> Release Status: release
>
> Description:
> On section 3.2.4.2 of Bash Reference Manual, the example on*
> [[...]]* (page 13 in the PDF) is incorrect. Specifically, the example say *[[
> $line =~ [[:space:]]*?(a)b ]]*
On 20.9. 15:48, Greg Wooledge wrote:
but after the regex-glob-thing, it says:
That means values like ‘aab’ and ‘ aab’ will match
So there's a shift in intent between a? and a+ in what's supposed to be
a regular expression. Although of course the sentence is *literally*
true because the
On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 01:40:00PM +0800, hk wrote:
> Description:
> On section 3.2.4.2 of Bash Reference Manual, the example on*
> [[...]]* (page 13 in the PDF) is incorrect. Specifically, the example say *[[
> $line =~ [[:space:]]*?(a)b ]]* will match values like *'aab'* and*
>
Configuration Information [Automatically generated, do not change]:
Machine: x86_64
OS: linux-gnu
Compiler: gcc
Compilation CFLAGS: -g -O2 -Wno-parentheses -Wno-format-security
uname output: Linux hk 4.15.0-62-generic #69-Ubuntu SMP Wed Sep 4 20:55:53
UTC 2019 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
13 matches
Mail list logo
