This is the mail archive of the
libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: [Patch] Regex comments
- From: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- To: Tim Shen <timshen91 at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Paolo Carlini <paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com>, "libstdc++" <libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:26:38 +0000
- Subject: Re: [Patch] Regex comments
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAPrifDkTYZd3zNxpast3MqiUzp5u8L1=ymAJY6qkQXu6-ywV1A at mail dot gmail dot com> <526D75A5 dot 7010508 at oracle dot com> <CAPrifDnA29OPYGSB4nfdPJoWD-3YKmLGxJ3ewHR_xsigmq+Pbw at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAH6eHdQsioKr-zttwo1S2tWsbWYT4ACrwXYHLkoxEbMp9DMrxw at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAPrifD=9ZqAvx7hOR4RXQ7roQCbuBwB+c_CfgaBvd-aFyjMBuQ at mail dot gmail dot com>
On 28 October 2013 00:23, Tim Shen wrote:
> Thank you for figuring out so many syntax errors, I'll be careful next time.
No problem, I'm always happy to help review the grammar, syntax or
spelling in documentation improvements.
> On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 5:38 PM, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com> wrote:
>> + // The order of which states needs to be recursively applied DFS matters,
>> + // depend on which greedy mode we use.
>>
>> I don't understand this sentence at all, sorry. Can you explain it in
>> other terms, and I'll try to suggest better phrasing?
>
> + // _M_alt branch is "match once more", while _M_next is "get me out
> + // of this quantifier". Executing _M_next first or _M_alt first don't
> + // mean the same thing, and we need to choose the correct order under
> + // given greedy mode.
OK, that's clear, thanks!
I'm happy for that latest patch to be committed, thanks for taking the
time to improve the comments.