From nobody@FreeBSD.org Mon Aug 16 01:30:56 2004 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E85316A4CE for ; Mon, 16 Aug 2004 01:30:56 +0000 (GMT) Received: from www.freebsd.org (www.freebsd.org [216.136.204.117]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5291D43D1F for ; Mon, 16 Aug 2004 01:30:56 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from nobody@FreeBSD.org) Received: from www.freebsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by www.freebsd.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i7G1Uufl086941 for ; Mon, 16 Aug 2004 01:30:56 GMT (envelope-from nobody@www.freebsd.org) Received: (from nobody@localhost) by www.freebsd.org (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id i7G1UuJc086940; Mon, 16 Aug 2004 01:30:56 GMT (envelope-from nobody) Message-Id: <200408160130.i7G1UuJc086940@www.freebsd.org> Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 01:30:56 GMT From: Marian Cerny To: freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org Subject: RE in BUG section of re_format(7) in obsolete notation X-Send-Pr-Version: www-2.3 >Number: 70507 >Category: docs >Synopsis: RE in BUG section of re_format(7) in obsolete notation >Confidential: no >Severity: non-critical >Priority: low >Responsible: freebsd-doc >State: closed >Quarter: >Keywords: >Date-Required: >Class: doc-bug >Submitter-Id: current-users >Arrival-Date: Mon Aug 16 01:40:22 GMT 2004 >Closed-Date: Mon Jul 11 10:59:52 GMT 2005 >Last-Modified: Mon Jul 11 10:59:52 GMT 2005 >Originator: Marian Cerny >Release: FreeBSD 5.2.1 >Organization: >Environment: FreeBSD potvorka 5.2.1-RELEASE FreeBSD 5.2.1-RELEASE #2: Sat Aug 14 14:06:07 CEST 2004 majo@potvorka:/usr/src/sys/i386/compile/POTVORKA i386 >Description: Shouldn't this paragraph in BUGS section in manual page of re_format: Back references are a dreadful botch, posing major problems for efficient implementations. They are also somewhat vaguely defined (does `a\(\(b\)*\2\)*d' match `abbbd'?). Avoid using them. be Back references are a dreadful botch, posing major problems for efficient implementations. They are also somewhat vaguely defined (does `a((b)*\2)*d' match `abbbd'?). Avoid using them. because `a\(\(b\)*\2\)*d' is in obsolete notation? Or does this bug concern only the obsolete REs? >How-To-Repeat: man 7 re_format >Fix: >Release-Note: >Audit-Trail: Responsible-Changed-From-To: freebsd-doc->keramida Responsible-Changed-By: keramida Responsible-Changed-When: Tue Aug 17 14:23:49 GMT 2004 Responsible-Changed-Why: I'll see what I can do about this one. http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=70507 From: Giorgos Keramidas To: Marian Cerny Cc: bug-followup@FreeBSD.org, "Daniel C. Sobral" , Ruslan Ermilov , "David O'Brien" Subject: Re: docs/70507: RE in BUG section of re_format(7) in obsolete notation Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 17:23:15 +0300 On 2004-08-16 01:30, Marian Cerny wrote: > Shouldn't this paragraph in BUGS section in manual page of re_format: > > Back references are a dreadful botch, posing major problems for > efficient implementations. They are also somewhat vaguely > defined (does `a\(\(b\)*\2\)*d' match `abbbd'?). > Avoid using them. > > be > > Back references are a dreadful botch, posing major problems for > efficient implementations. They are also somewhat vaguely > defined (does `a((b)*\2)*d' match `abbbd'?). > Avoid using them. > > because `a\(\(b\)*\2\)*d' is in obsolete notation? Or does this bug > concern only the obsolete REs? You're probably right that we should change the syntax to look like a modern RE. The basic RE syntax is still used by many utils in the base system though. This is probably why the regexp has remained as you see it now. Daniel, Ruslan and David... what do you think? Is this change ok? - Giorgos Responsible-Changed-From-To: keramida->freebsd-doc Responsible-Changed-By: keramida Responsible-Changed-When: Tue Dec 21 22:33:52 GMT 2004 Responsible-Changed-Why: Put this back in the free pool. I don't think I can handle it appropriately. http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=70507 From: "Daniel C. Sobral" To: Giorgos Keramidas Cc: Marian Cerny , bug-followup@FreeBSD.org, "Daniel C. Sobral" , Ruslan Ermilov , "David O'Brien" Subject: Re: docs/70507: RE in BUG section of re_format(7) in obsolete notation Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2005 23:01:07 -0300 Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > On 2004-08-16 01:30, Marian Cerny wrote: > >>Shouldn't this paragraph in BUGS section in manual page of re_format: >> >> Back references are a dreadful botch, posing major problems for >> efficient implementations. They are also somewhat vaguely >> defined (does `a\(\(b\)*\2\)*d' match `abbbd'?). >> Avoid using them. >> >>be >> >> Back references are a dreadful botch, posing major problems for >> efficient implementations. They are also somewhat vaguely >> defined (does `a((b)*\2)*d' match `abbbd'?). >> Avoid using them. >> >>because `a\(\(b\)*\2\)*d' is in obsolete notation? Or does this bug >>concern only the obsolete REs? > > > You're probably right that we should change the syntax to look like a > modern RE. The basic RE syntax is still used by many utils in the base > system though. This is probably why the regexp has remained as you see > it now. > > Daniel, Ruslan and David... what do you think? Is this change ok? Old, OLD messages... This was lost in a number of spams I'm happing to be clearing right now. Thing about back references is... they didn't work with Extended Regex, only with basic Regex, which is the obsolete notation. So I'm guessing the rewritten example wouldn't work, because back references is not supported with that syntax. So, if this change was done, could someone check if back references are actually supported in extended regex (the modern syntax), and, if not, undone this change? :-) -- Daniel C. Sobral (8-DCS) dcs@newsguy.com dcs@freebsd.org capo@the.great.underground.bsdconpiracy.org In related news Microsoft Windows users are now covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act. From: Giorgos Keramidas To: "Daniel C. Sobral" Cc: Marian Cerny , bug-followup@freebsd.org, "Daniel C. Sobral" , Ruslan Ermilov , "David O'Brien" Subject: Re: docs/70507: RE in BUG section of re_format(7) in obsolete notation Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 15:05:55 +0300 On 2005-07-09 23:01, "Daniel C. Sobral" wrote: >Giorgos Keramidas wrote: >>On 2004-08-16 01:30, Marian Cerny wrote: >>> Shouldn't this paragraph in BUGS section in manual page of re_format: >>> >>> Back references are a dreadful botch, posing major problems for >>> efficient implementations. They are also somewhat vaguely >>> defined (does `a\(\(b\)*\2\)*d' match `abbbd'?). >>> Avoid using them. >>> >>> be >>> >>> Back references are a dreadful botch, posing major problems for >>> efficient implementations. They are also somewhat vaguely >>> defined (does `a((b)*\2)*d' match `abbbd'?). >>> Avoid using them. >>> >>> because `a\(\(b\)*\2\)*d' is in obsolete notation? Or does this bug >>> concern only the obsolete REs? >> >> You're probably right that we should change the syntax to look like a >> modern RE. The basic RE syntax is still used by many utils in the base >> system though. This is probably why the regexp has remained as you see >> it now. >> >> Daniel, Ruslan and David... what do you think? Is this change ok? > > Old, OLD messages... This was lost in a number of spams I'm happing to > be clearing right now. Thing about back references is... they didn't > work with Extended Regex, only with basic Regex, which is the obsolete > notation. > > So I'm guessing the rewritten example wouldn't work, because back > references is not supported with that syntax. So, if this change was > done, could someone check if back references are actually supported in > extended regex (the modern syntax), and, if not, undone this change? :-) Nothing was changed, since I wasn't sure of what to do. Thanks for the clarification :-) Does this mean we can close this PR now? From: Marian Cerny To: Giorgos Keramidas Cc: "Daniel C. Sobral" , bug-followup@freebsd.org, "Daniel C. Sobral" , Ruslan Ermilov , David O'Brien Subject: Re: docs/70507: RE in BUG section of re_format(7) in obsolete notation Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 17:08:15 +0200 On 2005-07-10 15:05 +0300, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > On 2005-07-09 23:01, "Daniel C. Sobral" wrote: > >Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > >>On 2004-08-16 01:30, Marian Cerny wrote: > >>> Shouldn't this paragraph in BUGS section in manual page of re_format: > >>> > >>> Back references are a dreadful botch, posing major problems for > >>> efficient implementations. They are also somewhat vaguely > >>> defined (does `a\(\(b\)*\2\)*d' match `abbbd'?). > >>> Avoid using them. > >>> > >>> be > >>> > >>> Back references are a dreadful botch, posing major problems for > >>> efficient implementations. They are also somewhat vaguely > >>> defined (does `a((b)*\2)*d' match `abbbd'?). > >>> Avoid using them. > >>> > >>> because `a\(\(b\)*\2\)*d' is in obsolete notation? Or does this bug > >>> concern only the obsolete REs? > >> > >> You're probably right that we should change the syntax to look like a > >> modern RE. The basic RE syntax is still used by many utils in the base > >> system though. This is probably why the regexp has remained as you see > >> it now. > >> > >> Daniel, Ruslan and David... what do you think? Is this change ok? > > > > Old, OLD messages... This was lost in a number of spams I'm happing to > > be clearing right now. Thing about back references is... they didn't > > work with Extended Regex, only with basic Regex, which is the obsolete > > notation. > > > > So I'm guessing the rewritten example wouldn't work, because back > > references is not supported with that syntax. So, if this change was > > done, could someone check if back references are actually supported in > > extended regex (the modern syntax), and, if not, undone this change? :-) > > Nothing was changed, since I wasn't sure of what to do. > > Thanks for the clarification :-) Now, when I am reading the manpage once again, i noticed that back references are not supported in modern REs. But implementation in FreeBSD (egrep) supports them and the modified example works. > Does this mean we can close this PR now? Yes, if back references are not supported by POSIX in modern RE, the PR can be IMHO closed. -- Marian Cerny Jabber: jojo@njs.netlab.cz [ UNIX is user friendly. It's just selective about who its friends are. ] State-Changed-From-To: open->closed State-Changed-By: keramida State-Changed-When: Mon Jul 11 10:59:34 GMT 2005 State-Changed-Why: Submitted says it's ok to close this PR. http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=70507 >Unformatted: