regex patch

[Jonathan Wakely]

On 18 June 2010 18:32, Stephen M. Webb wrote:
>
> (1) I have two test cases that fail because the functionality has not yet been
> implemented.  What is the standard operating procedure for this?  I'd rather
> have failing tests cases that eventually get fixed than to have the problems
> missed because the test cases are absent or xfailed.

Is it functionality in <regex> or elsewhere in the library?  In any
case, the tests could be checked in as XFAILs.
I don't think we're any more/less likely to forget about unimplemented
features but I think it's better to have them present and XFAILed than
not have them at all.
For a lot of the C++0x components there are TODO comments in the code
and the cxx0x_status.xml section of the manual can be used to note
incomplete/missing features.

> (2) My autotools version is out of synch with the one used to generate the
> generated files.  Getting an exact match may take until next week.  Is it OK
> not to commit regenerated files?  What is the usual policy on this?

I don't think you should miss those files from the commit. If you send
me changes I can regen the dependent files.