hello,
On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 07:22:57PM +0100, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> > I the same mood: I realized recently that no implementation of awk
> > seems to implement quantifiers which is really desapointing.
> Awk uses EREs, so if by quantifiers you mean {n,m}, then awk most
> certainly
Marc Chantreux:
> I the same mood: I realized recently that no implementation of awk
> seems to implement quantifiers which is really desapointing.
Awk uses EREs, so if by quantifiers you mean {n,m}, then awk most
certainly supports this.
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber
hello,
> but note that BREs are not a strict subset of EREs
I have to admit that's the way I saw BRE so thanks a lot for noticing me.
I the same mood: I realized recently that no implementation of awk
seems to implement quantifiers which is really desapointing.
I don't realize those things
Marc Chantreux:
> But is there another good reason for BRE to be still alive?
> (perfomance, simplicity, or anything else).
I think it is mostly for historical reasons, but note that BREs are
not a strict subset of EREs: BREs allow back-references, EREs do
not.
The GNU project turned BREs and
hello,
> these tools by default use basic regexps (BRE).
Out of curiosity:
To me, it's just a reason of retrocompat: no people dare breaking
everything at some point. I really dislike the fact that it's
confusing (for example: + must be protected but not *).
But is there another good reason
5 matches
Mail list logo
