[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: string-match bug?

From: Andreas Röhler
Subject: Re: string-match bug?
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 14:55:33 +0100
User-agent: Thunderbird (X11/20081227)

Peter Dyballa wrote:
> Am 08.12.2009 um 11:50 schrieb Andreas Röhler:
>> Barry Margolin wrote:
>>> In article <address@hidden>,
>>> Matthew Dempsky matthew dempsky wrote:
>>> Here's another example of a limit case:
>>> (string-match "a*" "b") returns 0, because a* matches zero or more a's,
>>> and there are zero a's at position 0.
>> Hmm, interesting
>> IMHO that differs:
>> (string-match "a*" "b") asks for a non-occurrence too. So "0" of first
>> position is plausible.
> Aren't the regular expressions "" and "a*" equivalent in that respect
> that they both also match the empty string?


Ah, see some point now. If I take the "a", nothing is left...

OTOH if (string-match "a*" "b") returns NIL, will that be less plausible?

Not sure... However, see current behavior conforms to POSIX

So I'll simply keep it in mind, hopefully...

Thanks all again


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]