Re: regex and case-fold-search problem

[Miles Bader]

Andreas Schwab <address@hidden> writes:
> |> Yeah, but character ranges make perfect sense in many local contexts.
> |> E.g., [0-9], or [<0>-<9>] where <0> and <9> are `wide' digits from some
> |> character set.
> 
> What does [A-Z] mean in EBCDIC?  [0-9] is a special case, because ISO C
> requires that 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 are consecutive in the execution
> character set.  But in many locales the collating sequence <A> - <Z>
> contains more that just the upper case letters from the English alphabet.

The question is not `does [A-Z] make sense?', but rather: `_if_ [A-Z]
makes sense, does [a-z] make sense too?'

That is, we aren't the ones writing [A-Z], it's lisp authors or users
entering regexps or something.  If they want to enter a less-than-useful
character range, that's their prerogative; however, emacs should avoid
making what they enter _less_ meaningful because of the case-fold-search
setting.

My point was that perhaps in practice, the ranges that would get screwed
up by case-fold-search are even less sensible that normal, meaning it's
likely most people wouldn't (or shouldn't) use them, and we really don't
need to worry about the issue.  [ASCII is probably a special case, since
it's so well known that people actually do tend to specify wierd ranges]

[but it looks like maybe it will get fixed properly anyway...]

-miles
-- 
`Life is a boundless sea of bitterness'