GNU bug report logs - #34100
26.1; Incomplete ? and ?? handling in rx

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 34100 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 34100 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Mattias Engdegård <mattiase <at> acm.org>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: 26.1; Incomplete ? and ?? handling in rx
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 12:39:58 +0100

In rx, the ? and ?? operators can be written verbatim as ? and ?? (space and ? character), or by using symbols whose leading character needs to be escaped, \? and \?? respectively. The names come from Olin Shivers's SRE, but ? is not a special character in Scheme syntax, hence the character syntax hack.

However, the symbols only partially work:

(rx (\? "x") (\?? "y"))       --> "x?y?"  ; expected "x?y??"
(rx (minimal-match (\? "x"))) --> "x??"   ; expected "x?"

While it could be argued that only the character-based syntax should be used, the fact is that the symbols are accepted and seem to work, just in a subtly broken way.

The documentation is also not clear on this point, and a programmer knowing the elisp syntax might very well assume that the symbols are the ones to use.

Suggested fix:

diff --git a/lisp/emacs-lisp/rx.el b/lisp/emacs-lisp/rx.el
index a39fe55c32..8b4551d0d3 100644
--- a/lisp/emacs-lisp/rx.el
+++ b/lisp/emacs-lisp/rx.el
@@ -733,8 +733,8 @@
 is non-nil."
   (rx-check form)
   (setq form (rx-trans-forms form))
-  (let ((suffix (cond ((memq (car form) '(* + ?\s)) "")
-		      ((memq (car form) '(*? +? ??)) "?")
+  (let ((suffix (cond ((memq (car form) '(* + \? ?\s)) "")
+		      ((memq (car form) '(*? +? \?? ??)) "?")
 		      (rx-greedy-flag "")
 		      (t "?")))
 	(op (cond ((memq (car form) '(* *? 0+ zero-or-more)) "*")

Message #8 received at 34100 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Mattias Engdegård <mattiase <at> acm.org>
To: 34100 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: rx \? and \??: patch
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 15:06:08 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Here is a patch with a test.

[0001-Make-the-rx-operators-and-behave-correctly.patch (application/octet-stream, attachment)]

Message #11 received at 34100 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Mattias Engdegård <mattiase <at> acm.org>
To: 34100 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#34100: Acknowledgement (26.1; Incomplete ? and ?? handling in
 rx)
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2019 11:09:46 +0100

Anything more I can do? I thought this one would be rather straightforward.
I do understand that there are more pressing matters.

Message #14 received at 34100 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen <at> web.de>
To: Mattias Engdegård <mattiase <at> acm.org>
Cc: 34100 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#34100: Acknowledgement (26.1;
 Incomplete ? and ?? handling in rx)
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 16:53:28 +0100

Mattias Engdegård <mattiase <at> acm.org> writes:

> Anything more I can do? I thought this one would be rather
> straightforward.  I do understand that there are more pressing
> matters.

I guess you just have to be patient until someone has a look.  That can
sometimes take some time, there are a lot of open bug reports...

For me what you suggest looks like a good idea btw.

Michael.

Message #19 received at 34100-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: mattiase <at> acm.org
Cc: Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen <at> web.de>, 34100-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#34100: Acknowledgement (26.1;
 Incomplete ? and ?? handling in rx)
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2019 11:44:20 +0200

> From: Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen <at> web.de>
> Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 16:53:28 +0100
> Cc: 34100 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> 
> Mattias Engdegård <mattiase <at> acm.org> writes:
> 
> > Anything more I can do? I thought this one would be rather
> > straightforward.  I do understand that there are more pressing
> > matters.
> 
> I guess you just have to be patient until someone has a look.  That can
> sometimes take some time, there are a lot of open bug reports...
> 
> For me what you suggest looks like a good idea btw.

Sorry for the long delay, Mattias.  I've now pushed your changes to
the master branch, and I'm marking this bug done.

Thanks.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.