This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [Patch] Support assertions and greedy/ungreedy matching in regex
- From: Tim Shen <timshen91 at gmail dot com>
- To: Paolo Carlini <paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com>
- Cc: "libstdc++" <libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 10:51:34 -0400
- Subject: Re: [Patch] Support assertions and greedy/ungreedy matching in regex
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAPrifD=FsT0c6+VK7P6mFO6D9pVUbDdy8Soq-rmHoMA55t7t9A at mail dot gmail dot com> <5231C831 dot 2010206 at oracle dot com>
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Paolo Carlini <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Great. A quick-quick comment: if these are the last two features, why we
> can't un-xfail the testcase which we added latety? Also, a grep revealed a
> couple more xfails. Can you clarify?
I say `feature` when I think that, what these xfails reveal are too
small to be features, say, regex_search/regex_match flags. Now turns
out "feature" is not a good word for them. I do mean all C++ library
independent part, or pure regex function part, are done. Next days I
will add flags implementation.
> Also, much more generally, I would be curious about the remaining work: I
> think essentially it boils down to the vagaries for the other non-default
> regex dialects? Is it a lot of work?
already supports all dialects(ECMAScript, basic, extended, grep,
egrep, awk) specified by standard. Most of the differences between
them are eliminated by _Scanner, aka tokenizer, so it's actually not a
lot of work to even add one more syntax. But again, I think more
testcases are needed, especially from those experienced regex users.
I'm actually not a big fan of regex(but of NFA ;), or can I borrow
some boost/libc++ testcases without making any licence trouble?