[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: |
Wed, 09 Dec 2009 18:33:05 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20081227) |
Juanma Barranquero wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 09:05, Andreas Röhler
> <andreas.roehler@easy-emacs.de> wrote:
>
>> Nonetheless, returning NIL at the second question looks like a more useful
>> result -
>
> Why?
>
>> because taking incertitude.
>
> Which incertitude? Matching the empty regexp against any string is
> always going to match.
But simply by convention, isn't it?
Aren't
(string-match "" "a")
and
(string-match "" "")
different cases in some perspective?
The return value is censured being a position.
Second case is plausible, there is an empty string at pos 0.
First has no empty string at pos 0.
Result is logically not plausible for me - even if I'm well able to live
with... :)
>
> Juanma
>
- Re: string-match bug?, (continued)
- Message not available
- Re: string-match bug?, Barry Margolin, 2009/12/08
- Re: string-match bug?, Pascal J. Bourguignon, 2009/12/08
- Re: string-match bug?, Stefan Monnier, 2009/12/09
- Re: string-match bug?, Matthew Dempsky, 2009/12/08
- Re: string-match bug?, Andreas Röhler, 2009/12/09
- Re: string-match bug?, Juanma Barranquero, 2009/12/09
- Re: string-match bug?,
Andreas Röhler <=
- Re: string-match bug?, Matthew Dempsky, 2009/12/09
- Re: string-match bug?, tomas, 2009/12/09
- Re: string-match bug?, Andreas Röhler, 2009/12/09
- Re: string-match bug?, Matthew Dempsky, 2009/12/09
- Message not available
- Re: string-match bug?, Barry Margolin, 2009/12/09
- Re: string-match bug?, tomas, 2009/12/09
- Re: string-match bug?, Kevin Rodgers, 2009/12/09
- Message not available
- Re: string-match bug?, Stefan Monnier, 2009/12/10
- Re: string-match bug?, tomas, 2009/12/10
- Re: string-match bug?, Andreas Politz, 2009/12/10