Mailing-List: contact stdcxx-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of AntonP@moscow.vdiweb.com
 designates 195.210.189.132 as permitted sender)
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: rw_match() bug
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 19:39:44 +0400
Message-ID: <4D6A8407B7AC6F4D95B0E55C4E7C4C620475C013@exmsk.moscow.vdiweb.com>
Thread-Topic: rw_match() bug
Thread-Index: AcaZgjlLwqNSr7B5S2yRudJ+pxIbvQAeqjtA
From: "Anton Pevtsov" <AntonP@moscow.vdiweb.com>
To: <stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org>

Ok, I see. There are no problems to switch the strings tests to using
the (1) method. I think it will require changes in one line.
So I'll do it when the new version of the char.cpp will be ready.

Thanks,
Anton Pevtsov

-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Sebor [mailto:sebor@roguewave.com]=20
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 04:40
To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: rw_match() bug


Martin Sebor wrote:
[...]
> Hmm. There are two possible interpretations of the third argument to=20
> rw_match():
>=20
> 1. it gives the maximum number of characters to compare (i.e.,
>    after all directives have been expanded)
>=20
> 2. it denotes the number of characters in the first argument
>    (i.e., before the expansion of any directives).
>=20
> It looks like currently we do (2). I missed this and made changes to=20
> implement (1). Needless to say, even though my changes are "good",=20
> they cause many failures in the test suite. I need to go back and=20
> implement (1). It shouldn't be too hard but it means that I won't be=20
> able to commit my changes tonight (what I have is attached so you can=20
> see where I am).

OTOH, (1) seems to make more sense to me. What do you think? If you
agree, how difficult do you think it would be to switch the string tests
to using it instead of (2)?

Martin