Achim Gratz <Stromeko@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> Nothing to do with the patch from Ed, but the regex following his
> correction matches a lot of things that decidedly are not "Numbers with
> specific bases" as it claims to do in the comment.
>
> Ed Maste writes:
>> PATTERNS("elixir",
>> "^[ \t]*((def(macro|module|impl|protocol|p)?|test)[ \t].*)$",
>> /* Atoms, names, and module attributes */
>> - "|[@:]?[a-zA-Z0-9@_?!]+"
>> + "[@:]?[a-zA-Z0-9@_?!]+"
>> /* Numbers with specific base */
>> "|[-+]?0[xob][0-9a-fA-F]+"
>
> Here, things like "+0bad" would match as a base 2 number, which doesn't
> seem right. If it's intended to match that broadly, I'd have expected a
> comment to that effect.
No need for such a comment, as it is implicit that we assume the
user writes reasonable text that our patterns try to match.
