Clive D. W. Feather
clive at on-the-train.demon.co.uk
Thu Mar 8 14:30:51 PST 2001
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In message <877l21qu5u.fsf at erlenstar.demon.co.uk>, Andrew Gierth
<andrew at erlenstar.demon.co.uk> writes
> Clive> wildmat = wildmat-pattern *("," ["!"] wildmat-pattern)
>I reiterate my objection that a single wildmat, and a comma-delimited
>list of (possibly negated) wildmats, are separate syntactic entities
>and should not be combined in this way.
I'm happy to let others argue this out.
I simply suggest that, if the consensus is with you, the single wildmat
have the same syntax as "wildmat-pattern" does here; in particular,
unescaped comma forbidden and must not start with an exclamation mark.
>In fact, the present text severely interferes with attempts to
>handle complex pattern lists efficiently.
Can you explain this point, please ?
> Clive> [W6: the grammar does not treat , in sets as special. This
> Clive> means that the wildmat "a[b,c]d" is a single pattern that
> Clive> matches the three strings "abd", "a,d", and "acd". Are we
> Clive> happy with this ? It matches existing practice
>it does no such thing. Existing practice, where a list of wildmats is
>expected, treats ',' as a delimiter without any escape mechanism (and
>none is needed).
This can be changed trivially if that's what people want. However, it
will mean that there is no way to include a comma in a set.
Clive D.W. Feather | Internet Expert | Work: <clive at demon.net>
Tel: +44 20 8371 1138 | Demon Internet | Home: <clive at davros.org>
Fax: +44 20 8371 1037 | Thus plc | Web: <http://www.davros.org>
Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the ietf-nntp