Austin Group Defect Tracker

Aardvark Mark IV

Main | My View | View Issues | Change Log | Docs
  

Viewing Issue Simple Details [ Jump to Notes ] [ Issue History ] [ Print ]
ID Category Severity Type Date Submitted Last Update
0001575 [Issue 8 drafts] Base Definitions and Headers Editorial Enhancement Request 2022-04-05 01:15 2022-04-08 08:51
Reporter calestyo View Status public  
Assigned To
Priority normal Resolution Withdrawn  
Status Closed   Product Version Draft 2.1
Name Christoph Anton Mitterer
Organization
User Reference
Section 9.3.5 RE Bracket Expression
Page Number 169
Line Number 5872
Final Accepted Text
Summary 0001575: imrpove indication that [^] as a bracket expression is not valid
Description Hey.

When working on issue #1551 I stumbled over the question that it's a bit vague, whether regular expressions allow a bracket expression that consists of a single <circumflex>, i.e. '[^]'... which should supposedly match the literal <circumflex>.

I'd say line 5872:
"A matching list expression specifies a list that shall match any single character that is matched by one of the expressions represented in the list. The first character in the list cannot be the <circumflex>."

kinda implies that it's *not* possible, because that item "2." describes the matching list, and it says "The first character in the list cannot be the <circumflex>.".
Desired Action Replace page 169, line 5873:

"The first character in the list cannot be the <circumflex>."

with:

"The first or only character in the list cannot be the <circumflex>."



I wonder whether this is enough. cause it would only be in the section that describes "matching lists".
What if one e.g. considers '[^]' a non-matching list?

That I think however is already ruled out earlier, by page 168, line 5833, which says:
"A bracket expression is either a matching list expression or a non-matching list expression. It consists of one or more expressions: ordinary characters, collating elements, collating symbols, equivalence classes, character classes, or range expressions."

Thus a non-matching list would need to consist of "one or more <something>", whereas '[^]' (as a thought non-matching list) would miss that <something>.
Tags No tags attached.
Attached Files

- Relationships

-  Notes
(0005782)
geoffclare (manager)
2022-04-05 14:32

 [^] is not a valid bracket expression because it is missing the terminating ']'.

[^]] is a valid bracket expression that matches any character except ']'.

See XBD 9.3.5 item 1:
The <right-square-bracket> (']') shall lose its special meaning and represent itself in a bracket expression if it occurs first in the list (after an initial <circumflex> ('ˆ'), if any).
(0005787)
calestyo (reporter)
2022-04-07 22:55

 Hmm. I actually had things like []] in mind when asking for the above, cause a non-expert reader could (when not reading everything or understanding its subtle implications) come to the idea that [^] might be a valid special case of a bracket expression, just like []] is.

Of course it is not (which I was trying to point even more with my proposed change).

But you're right, since [^] is not only not equivalent to '\^' but not even a valid bracket expression at all,... my above proposal wouldn't make sense.


We could add a hint like "([^] alone isn't a valid bracket expression)" to the paragraph at line 5872.
But I'd agree that this is not necessary.


Unless you feel different, please close this issue and sorry for the noise.



btw and unrelated:
- In 9.3.2 BRE Ordinary Characters, "When not inside a bracket expression, the interpretation of an ordinary character preceded by an unescaped <backslash> is undefined, except for:"
doesn't list '^' and '$' which, as per 9.3.8 BRE Expression Anchoring may follow a '\'.
(And perhaps the same for EREs.)

- 9.3.8 BRE Expression Anchoring, point 1 mentions that a portable BRE, shall escape a subexpressions leading ^ if that shall be literal. But point 2 doesn't mention the same for a trailing '$', though that seems also implementation dependant.

Do you think anything should be done about that?
(0005789)
geoffclare (manager)
2022-04-08 08:51

 Closing as withdrawn, as per the submitter's request in Note: 0005787

- Issue History
Date Modified Username Field Change
2022-04-05 01:15 calestyo New Issue
2022-04-05 01:15 calestyo Name => Christoph Anton Mitterer
2022-04-05 01:15 calestyo Section => 9.3.5 RE Bracket Expression
2022-04-05 01:15 calestyo Page Number => 169
2022-04-05 01:15 calestyo Line Number => 5872
2022-04-05 14:32 geoffclare Note Added: 0005782
2022-04-07 22:55 calestyo Note Added: 0005787
2022-04-08 08:51 geoffclare Note Added: 0005789
2022-04-08 08:51 geoffclare Status New => Closed
2022-04-08 08:51 geoffclare Resolution Open => Withdrawn

Mantis 1.1.6[^]
Copyright © 2000 - 2008 Mantis Group
Powered by Mantis Bugtracker