From: Keith MacDonald (boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-02-11 15:49:33
> Aren't the options you want just the same as the POSIX-Basic syntax
Yes, but because they could previously be individually selected, I gave the
users of my application the option of setting bk_parens and/or bk_braces,
separately from choosing POSIX or Perl semantics. It seems that syntax and
semantics are no longer orthogonal. I don't have strong feelings about
that, but just wanted to check that it was intentional, before hacking the
application.
Thanks,
Keith MacDonald
"John Maddock" <john_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:00cf01c62ef3$4d9bbae0$47520e52_at_fuji...
>> It states in history.html for regex 1.33.0 that "some of the more
>> esoteric options have now been removed, so there is the possibility
>> that existing code may fail to compile: however equivalent
>> functionality should still be available". I suppose bk_parens and
>> bk_braces could be considered esoteric, but I cannot find any
>> equivalent functionality. Is that intentional?
>
> Apologies for the slow response I missed the first one.
>
> Aren't the options you want just the same as the POSIX-Basic syntax:
>
> boost::regex e("\\(abc\\)\\{1,2\\}", boost::regex::basic);
>
> See file:///c:/data/boost/develop/boost/libs/regex/doc/syntax_basic.html
>
> For the full syntax and the variations on it (like emacs style regexes).
>
> John.