From nobody@FreeBSD.org  Mon Aug 16 01:30:56 2004
Return-Path: <nobody@FreeBSD.org>
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E85316A4CE
	for <freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org>; 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 <freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org>; 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 <freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org>; 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 <jojo@matfyz.cz>
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 <keramida@FreeBSD.org>
To: Marian Cerny <jojo@matfyz.cz>
Cc: bug-followup@FreeBSD.org, "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@FreeBSD.org>,
	Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.org>, "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.org>
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 <jojo@matfyz.cz> 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" <dcs@newsguy.com>
To: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@FreeBSD.org>
Cc: Marian Cerny <jojo@matfyz.cz>, bug-followup@FreeBSD.org,
   "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@FreeBSD.org>, Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.org>,
   "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.org>
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 <jojo@matfyz.cz> 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 <keramida@freebsd.org>
To: "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@newsguy.com>
Cc: Marian Cerny <jojo@matfyz.cz>, bug-followup@freebsd.org,
        "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@freebsd.org>, Ruslan Ermilov <ru@freebsd.org>,
        "David O'Brien" <obrien@freebsd.org>
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" <dcs@newsguy.com> wrote:
 >Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
 >>On 2004-08-16 01:30, Marian Cerny <jojo@matfyz.cz> 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 <jojo@matfyz.cz>
To: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@freebsd.org>
Cc: "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@newsguy.com>, bug-followup@freebsd.org,
	"Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@freebsd.org>,
	Ruslan Ermilov <ru@freebsd.org>, David O'Brien <obrien@freebsd.org>
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" <dcs@newsguy.com> wrote:
 > >Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
 > >>On 2004-08-16 01:30, Marian Cerny <jojo@matfyz.cz> 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 <jojo@matfyz.cz>
 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:
