Re: [pcre-dev] Remove some restrictions of lookbehind assertions

2019-07-31 Thread ND via Pcre-dev
On 2019-07-29 10:45, Zoltán Herczeg wrote: I am open to other names, but I would propose the following control verbs: (*MOVE:mark_name) - This verb changes the current string position to the position recorded by the last mark which name is mark_name. (*SETEND:mark_name) - This verb

[pcre-dev] [Bug 2420] incorrect return type documented for pcre2_maketables

2019-07-31 Thread admin
https://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2420 Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belón changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Resolution|FIXED

[pcre-dev] [Bug 2420] incorrect return type documented for pcre2_maketables

2019-07-31 Thread admin
https://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2420 --- Comment #3 from Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belón --- Created attachment 1210 --> https://bugs.exim.org/attachment.cgi?id=1210=edit additional patch pcre2.h.generic likely to be fixed through the Release procedure (as I am hoping pcre2.txt) but the

[pcre-dev] [Bug 2426] New: PCRE: when extra->study_data==NULL, no need to write it (pcretest.c)

2019-07-31 Thread admin
https://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2426 Bug ID: 2426 Summary: PCRE: when extra->study_data==NULL, no need to write it (pcretest.c) Product: PCRE Version: 8.43 Hardware: x86 OS: All Status:

Re: [pcre-dev] Remove some restrictions of lookbehind assertions

2019-07-31 Thread ph10
On Wed, 31 Jul 2019, Zoltán Herczeg wrote: > If we consider the following pattern: > /(*napla:a|a)+/ > > is the same as: > /(?:(*napla:a|a))+/ > > Then we have an empty match if I understand  correctly the behavior of > this new construct. Oh, sorry, I was thinking of

Re: [pcre-dev] Remove some restrictions of lookbehind assertions

2019-07-31 Thread Zoltán Herczeg
> > You are right. Since you can put it into a group, it is not possible > > to prevent repetitions. However the rule that empty matches break > > (non-fixed) loops may solve this problem. > ... but it's not an empty match. If we consider the following pattern: /(*napla:a|a)+/ is the same as:

Re: [pcre-dev] Remove some restrictions of lookbehind assertions

2019-07-31 Thread ph10
On Wed, 31 Jul 2019, Zoltán Herczeg wrote: > You are right. Since you can put it into a group, it is not possible > to prevent repetitions. However the rule that empty matches break > (non-fixed) loops may solve this problem. ... but it's not an empty match. > I start to understand why perl

Re: [pcre-dev] Remove some restrictions of lookbehind assertions

2019-07-31 Thread Zoltán Herczeg
> as normal groups, not as assertion groups. What happens when they are > repeated must be defined - or maybe they should not be allowed to > repeat, because once again that might be an easy way to infinite loops. You are right. Since you can put it into a group, it is not possible to prevent