incubator-stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Black <>
Subject Re: [PATCH]
Date Fri, 01 Sep 2006 16:33:14 GMT
Take two on the patches are attached (removing most of the whitespace 

I've done a little more cleanup on the patterns (including removing the 
unneeded escapes within the [] blocks), and I think the pattern is about 
as simple as I can get it.  It would be possible to remove some of the 
capture braces, but I decided against this, as it would remove some of 
the similarities between the pairs of patterns that can provide a 
measure of context to other developers working on the code.

I'm not certain if standardization would be the most accurate 
description of what I did, but it is accurate enough.  The (basically) 
same pair of patterns was used in 3 different locations, and I replaced 
all these instances with a single pair of patterns.

--Andrew Black

Martin Sebor wrote:
> Andrew Black wrote:
>> Ok...
>> Attached are a pair of quick patches that revisit these regular 
>> expressions.  Change log for each patch is below.  I suppose they 
>> could be committed together if desired.
>> --Andrew Black
>> ansi_fix.diff change log:
>>     * (test_locale()): Correct locale target name 
>> conversion patterns to handle the ANSI_X3.4-1968 character map correctly.
>> pattern_sync.diff change log:
>>     * GNUmakefile.bin ($(LOCALE_LIST), $(DEPENDDIR)/localedb.d): 
>> Simplify and standardize sed patterns used to convert locale target 
>> names into locale and character map parameters.
> What was non-standard and what were the substantive changes to the
> code?
> The patches touches the whole rule so it's hard to tell at a glance
> exactly what changed (although ignoring whitespace reveals that only
> the regular expressions have).
> Escaping the dot in the bracket expression shouldn't be necessary
> (the dot has no special meaning there except when it comes first).
> Ditto for the @ sign. Actually, according to POSIX, even the back
> slash character is supposed to lose its usual meaning so I'm not
> sure my understanding of the change is correct. Can you explain?
> Thanks
> Martin

View raw message