Re: Question about some fields in regex's re_pattern_buffer

[Reuben Thomas]

On 4 August 2010 00:17, Karl Berry <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>    two real arguments in favour
>    of regex.texi are:
>      - It less Makefile rules to use it directly, and regex.h changes rarely
>        enough.
>
> These days, I agree with that.  I think the simplicity of having the doc
> not be generated outweighs the automatic sync-ing.  (Back in time, Kathy
> and I were actually changing regex.h a lot, so the automatic sync made
> sense.)

OK, so nothing to change about the initial state of affairs; I'll
start from what's in the archive.

>> Supplementary question: in regexprops-generic.texi, I think that
>> having a plain English definition of the various syntaxes obscures the
>> fact that each is defined as a strict combination of features. Would
>> you be happy if I rewrote the manual as English documentation of each
>> feature plus a simple list (possibly automatically generated from
>> regex.h) of which features are present in which syntax?
>
> Sounds fine to me.  James can decide if he wants to pick up that version
> for findutils or keep using regexprops ...

It would be nice to hear from him; I'd rather not fork if he has
strong feelings. I'll email bug-findutils.

Thanks, Karl.

-- 
http://rrt.sc3d.org