Re: [Bug-ed] Searching for multiple matches with \+ isn't working

[Brian Zwahr]

I never even thought to try /oo*/. I was using /o\{1,\}/ instead. Good to know!

As for the archives, I still don't see anything newer than October 2018. 
Screenshot: 

https://d3vv6lp55qjaqc.cloudfront.net/items/1J3V1v052a2d2G1j0J3z/Image%202019-01-03%20at%209.11.59%20AM.png

Am I looking in the wrong place?

On Wed, Jan 2, 2019, at 10:43 PM, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Brian Zwahr wrote:
> > g/o\+/
> 
> In passing I will say that the equivelent basic RE for this is:
> 
>   /oo*/
> 
> And to make a typical example use to clarify this matches one or more
> digits.
> 
>   /[0-9][0-9]*/
> 
> > So 1.15 is officially released? The archives only show through
> > Oct. 2018, and the last posts there are about 1.15-pre2, which I
> > assume is/was not a final release. Related, the archive says it
> > refreshes every 30 minutes, but I don't see any of today's
> > conversation (nor anything since Oct 2018). Should the auto-refresh
> > have caught and posted this conversation?
> 
> I see this message thread in the archives.  As the message says, there
> is a cronjob that runs every half hour and threads in new messages.
> 
> > Unrelated side note: the mailing list rules state that only text
> > emails (no HTML) should be used, so I've been doing that (forcing
> > text format).
> 
> That rule for avoiding HTML email is generally true of all technical
> mailing lists.  HTML email has many problems and issues.  Plain text
> is always best!
> 
> > The replies I've been getting have been HTML emails. Is that rule no
> > longer applicable? If so, that'll save me the trouble of making sure
> > I'm sending text-only message, but also means that the rules should
> > probably be updated.
> 
> Thank you very much for sending plain text emails.  Why not make that
> the default? :-)
> 
> However the other emails I saw were multipart/alternative with both
> plain and html parts.  You may have seen the text/html part but others
> (myself!) saw the text/plain parts.  Worst case is an text/html only
> message, goodness forbid.
> 
> Off the top of my head...
> 
> HTML often gets used because people want to set colors and fonts for
> the reader.  But the recipient should have the choice of colors and
> fonts not the sender.
> 
> HTML has not been as accessible for screen readers for vision impaired
> users.  (I assume this has improved over the years.)
> 
> HTML is really inefficient for bandwidth.  It's a pig by comparison to
> plain text.  On mailing lists with a lot of subscribers that can be
> serious.  Often the gnu.org mailing lists keep the network bandwidth
> (all donated btw) at 100% for hours at a time.  Also as mobile cell
> data becomes more prevailent metered plans where the recipient pays
> the data charge means expense for the recipient.
> 
> Email standards only require a plain text part.  Therefore a fully
> standards compliant email client might display the raw html.
> 
> Some HTML producers generate really abhorent html.
> 
> HTML email often contains "web bugs" and other tracking mechanisms.
> 
> HTML has been used to propagate attacks.
> 
> Bob
> 
> P.S. Antonio, I twiddled the mailing list settings somewhat in
> response to this.