[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: |
Thu, 10 Dec 2009 07:38:46 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20081227) |
Stefan Monnier wrote:
>> But simply by convention, isn't it?
>
> No: it's the most consistent behavior, i.e. a natural consequence of the
> usual rules obeyed by regular expressions.
>
>> Aren't
>> (string-match "" "a")
>> and
>> (string-match "" "")
>> different cases in some perspective?
>
> How 'bout
>
> (string-match "b" "ba")
> vs
> (string-match "b" "b")
>
>
> -- Stefan
>
OK, see the point. As said, I can perfectly live with the "0".
OTOH still remains the empty string a special case of match, which could be
signaled
in it's quality difference.
BTW, lacking any practical case, where a change would pay, I don't suggest
one...
Andreas
- Re: string-match bug?, (continued)
- 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
- Re: string-match bug?, Kevin Rodgers, 2009/12/10
- Message not available
- Re: string-match bug?, David Kastrup, 2009/12/14
- Message not available
- Re: string-match bug?, Stefan Monnier, 2009/12/09
- Re: string-match bug?,
Andreas Röhler <=
- Message not available
- Re: string-match bug?, Frank Fredstone, 2009/12/10
- Re: string-match bug?, Andreas Röhler, 2009/12/10
- Re: string-match bug?, Juanma Barranquero, 2009/12/10
- Message not available
- Re: string-match bug?, Frank Fredstone, 2009/12/10
- Message not available
- Re: string-match bug?, David Kastrup, 2009/12/14