Atharva Raykar <raykar.ath@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>> + "(\\.|[^][)(\\}\\{ ])+"),
>>
>> One or more "dot or anything other than SP or parentheses"? But
>> a dot "." is neither a space or any {bra-ce} letter, so would the
>> above be equivalent to
>>
>> "[^][()\\{\\} \t]+"
>>
>> I wonder...
>
> A backslash is allowed in scheme identifiers, and I erroneously thought that
> the first part handles the case for identifiers such as `component\new` or
> `\"id-with-quotes\"`. (I tested it with a regex engine that behaves differently
> than the one git is using, my bad.)
Ah, perhaps you didn't have enough backslashes. A half of the
doubled one before the dot is eaten by the C compiler, so the regexp
engine is seeing only a single backslash before the dot, which means
"literally a single dot". If you meant "literally a single
backslash, followed by any single char", you probably would write 4
backslashes and a dot---half of the backslashes would be eaten by
the compiler, so you'd be passing two backslashes and a dot, which
is probably what you meant.
Having said that, two further points.
- the "anything but whitespaces and various forms of parentheses"
set would include backslash, so 'component\new' would be taken as
a single word with "[^][()\\{\\} \t]+", wouldn't it?
- how common is the use of backslashes in identifiers? I am trying
to see if the additional complexity needed to support them is
worth the benefit.
> But somehow, the regexp you suggested, ie:
>
> "[^][()\\{\\} \t]+"
>
> does not handle the case of make\foo -> make\bar (it will only diff on foo).
> I am not too sure why it treats backslashes as delimiters.
Perhaps because you have included two backslashes inside [] to say
"backslash is not a word character" in the original, and I blindly
copied that? IOW, do you need to quote {} inside []?
> Yes, this is exactly what I was trying to express. All words should be
> delimited by either whitespace or a parenthesis, and all other special
> characters should be accepted as part of the word.
That sentence after "All words should be..." would be a good comment
to replace what you wrote in the original, then ;-).
