[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: :alnum: broken?
From: |
Drew Adams |
Subject: |
RE: :alnum: broken? |
Date: |
Wed, 26 Feb 2020 06:54:20 -0800 (PST) |
> I just made this very mistake while adding a new regexp-error checking
> feature to xr. Needless to say I now am strongly in favour of turning it
> into a hard error.
Why "needless to say", and why wouldn't a
warning have alerted you?
It's not an error. It's not an invalid
regexp, even though it has unnecessary
duplication and it doesn't do at all
what you were likely expecting. That
faulty expectation is why a warning is
appropriate.
- RE: :alnum: broken?, (continued)
- RE: :alnum: broken?, Drew Adams, 2020/02/25
- Re: :alnum: broken?, Andreas Schwab, 2020/02/25
- Re: :alnum: broken?, Clément Pit-Claudel, 2020/02/25
- RE: :alnum: broken?, Drew Adams, 2020/02/25
- Re: :alnum: broken?, Mattias Engdegård, 2020/02/23
- Re: :alnum: broken?, Mattias Engdegård, 2020/02/26
- RE: :alnum: broken?,
Drew Adams <=
- Re: :alnum: broken?, Stefan Monnier, 2020/02/26
- Re: :alnum: broken?, Paul Eggert, 2020/02/26
- Re: :alnum: broken?, Mattias Engdegård, 2020/02/26
- Re: :alnum: broken?, Clément Pit-Claudel, 2020/02/26
- Re: :alnum: broken?, Mattias Engdegård, 2020/02/26
- Re: :alnum: broken?, Eli Zaretskii, 2020/02/26
- Re: :alnum: broken?, Mattias Engdegård, 2020/02/27
- Re: :alnum: broken?, Óscar Fuentes, 2020/02/27
- Re: :alnum: broken?, Eli Zaretskii, 2020/02/28
- Re: :alnum: broken?, Paul Eggert, 2020/02/28