From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 518 invoked from network); 2 Mar 2003 20:47:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO monty-python.gnu.org) (199.232.76.173) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 2 Mar 2003 20:47:46 -0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10.13) id 18paMZ-0008In-09 for listarch-gnats-devel@sources.redhat.com; Sun, 02 Mar 2003 15:47:11 -0500 Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.10.13) id 18paMF-0008FT-00 for help-gnats@gnu.org; Sun, 02 Mar 2003 15:46:51 -0500 Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10.13) id 18paME-0008Eg-00 for help-gnats@gnu.org; Sun, 02 Mar 2003 15:46:51 -0500 Received: from natint.juniper.net ([207.17.136.129] helo=merlot.juniper.net) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10.13) id 18paMD-0008Bi-00; Sun, 02 Mar 2003 15:46:49 -0500 Received: from juniper.net (garnet.juniper.net [172.17.28.17]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h22KklS44355; Sun, 2 Mar 2003 12:46:47 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mdb@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200303022046.h22KklS44355@merlot.juniper.net> To: "Andrew J. Gray" In-reply-to: Mail from "Andrew J. Gray" dated Sun, 02 Mar 2003 21:53:53 +1100 <200303021053.h22Arrn11407@localhost.localdomain> References: <20021102213505.GB646077@cluster1.netman.dk> <20021104191125.GA1148639@cluster2.netman.dk> <20021201221905.GA1331680@cluster2.netman.dk> <200303021053.h22Arrn11407@localhost.localdomain> From: "Mark D. Baushke" X-Mailer: MH-E 7.2+cvs; nmh 1.0.4; GNU Emacs 20.7.1 X-Face: #8D_6URD2G%vC.hzU List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Sender: help-gnats-bounces+listarch-gnats-devel=sources.redhat.com@gnu.org Errors-To: help-gnats-bounces+listarch-gnats-devel=sources.redhat.com@gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2003-q1/txt/msg00086.txt.bz2 Andrew J. Gray writes: > > In the meantime the existing Subject match code should be fixed to reflect > > the agreement reached a year back, see my first mail in this thread: > > http://mail.gnu.org/pipermail/help-gnats/2002-November/003185.html > > > > A patch follows that includes an update to the documentation. The > > feature is mentioned a couple of times in passing in 'Keeping > > Track'. I think it deserves a (sub)section of its own and have > > inserted one called 'Following up via direct email' in the 'Editing > > existing Problem Reports' section of 'The GNATS User Tools' chapter. > > I have also corrected a couple of minor errors that I ran across. > > Thanks for that patch, I am sorry it has taken me so long to get to > it. > > > The regular expression used for matching the Subject line appears in > > the code as > > > > \\<(PR[ \t#/]?|([-A-Za-z0-9_+.]+)/)([0-9]+) > > > > whereas the documentation has > > > > \<(PR[ \t#/]?|[-\w+.]+/)[0-9]+ > > > > I couldn't get the GNU match-word-constituent operator (\w) to work inside > > the bracket expression and am uncertain as to whether it is allowed there. > > Perl has it. The parentheses which are in the code, but missing from the > > manual, do not affect the matching; they are there only to capture Category > > and Number. > > As I understand it the match-word-constituent operator (\w) is not > meant to work inside matching lists. I am looking at the "info" > documentation included with the regex 0.12 (available from > http://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/regex/regex-0.12.tar.gz). In the "List > Operators" node it says most characters lose any special meaning > inside a list. > > I think the closest equivalent that works in a list is the alnum > character class. Using this the regular expression would become: > > \\<(PR[ \t#/]?|([-[:alnum:]_+.]+)/)([0-9]+) > > Do you think this is a satisfactory replacement for \w? \w is the same as [:alnum:]_ and does not really have "-" in the list, but doesn't have or "." or "+" in it. That said, using ([-:[:alnum:]_+.]+) in the above would seem to match a category name properly. > > I haven't aligned the regular expression syntax with the rest of > > GNATS as suggested by Milan. This is a non-issue as long as the > > regular expression is hard-coded and not exposed for users to > > modify. The regex searching is also case sensitive now. > > OK. > > > The patch is in production use in the GNATS installation that I am > > responsible for. I hope it can make it into GNATS 4.0-beta2? > > Sorry that the patch missed the beta 2. Once we have decided whether > or not to use the alnum character class I will commit the patch. > > -- > Andrew J. Gray Enjoy! -- Mark _______________________________________________ Help-gnats mailing list Help-gnats@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-gnats