Re: [bug-gawk] Numerical repeat is broken.

[Pierre Chartier]

Thanks,

Pierre Chartier

-----Original Message-----
From: Aharon Robbins [mailto:address@hidden 
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 3:57 PM
To: address@hidden
Cc: address@hidden; address@hidden;
address@hidden; address@hidden; address@hidden
Subject: Re: [bug-gawk] Numerical repeat is broken.

Hi. I have added a note in the doc that braces that aren't an interval
expression stand for themselves.

Thanks,

Arnold

> From: "Pierre Chartier" <address@hidden>
> To: "'Aharon Robbins'" <address@hidden>,
>         <address@hidden>
> Cc: <address@hidden>, "'Mark Scandariato'" <address@hidden>,
>         "Matthew P. Krupinksi III" <address@hidden>,
>         "Dave Posey" <address@hidden>,
>         "Rudy Guzman" <address@hidden>
> Subject: RE: [bug-gawk] Numerical repeat is broken.
> Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 08:49:35 -0500
>
> Thanks,
>
> I think my problem was due to the fact that the restriction on 
> availability was not mentioned along with the feature itself in the 
> documentation.  After a thorough examination of the manual, it was 
> clear, of course.  Having a comment about applicability alongside the 
> description of the concept itself would have been nice.
>
> The following nearby comment:
>               In POSIX awk and gawk, the '*', '+', and '?' operators stand
for 
> themselves when there is nothing in the regexp that precedes them. For 
> example, /+/ matches a literal plus sign. However, many other versions 
> of awk treat such a usage as a syntax error.
> Does not quite cover the restriction about {n}
>
> Best regards
>
> Pierre