From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2777 invoked by alias); 25 Feb 2017 15:17:52 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes List-Id: Zsh Workers List List-Post: List-Help: X-Seq: 40632 Received: (qmail 6647 invoked from network); 25 Feb 2017 15:17:52 -0000 X-Qmail-Scanner-Diagnostics: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com by f.primenet.com.au (envelope-from , uid 7791) with qmail-scanner-2.11 (clamdscan: 0.99.2/21882. spamassassin: 3.4.1. Clear:RC:0(66.111.4.28):SA:0(-0.7/5.0):. Processed in 1.075173 secs); 25 Feb 2017 15:17:52 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on f.primenet.com.au X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,T_DKIM_INVALID autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 X-Envelope-From: d.s@daniel.shahaf.name X-Qmail-Scanner-Mime-Attachments: | X-Qmail-Scanner-Zip-Files: | Received-SPF: none (ns1.primenet.com.au: domain at daniel.shahaf.name does not designate permitted sender hosts) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= daniel.shahaf.name; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=/4qj0dzleJ47lTI bmW32WmsAr4s=; b=nPnuBDOSKKAl/ug9ua704geY2gnYzkYOv7F+Fn52h6joe2x vtWR68x6O1THKK1TAsHfXspVYaZC51exSlL1ohiUd8uvoC/vTcfkr878CyNIjQkD teL1GfE9rsE5RaivLvInBfYTIIrgcxiPYpHu0zuzC1Xjc3e1Se+nsClH1oGQ= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=smtpout; bh=/4qj0dzleJ47lT IbmW32WmsAr4s=; b=LdUoV0c/WHzR+Y4QV12uTieqedm/RvCmWXU1LjLxb/ocwN LN3SaUhCMDA9gyFvsHGzDkmlmE68Vdi0BQjAebzl9TAzX0g2y2EzObT515fLZYrf SXLmrBEtCFr/iYTZb2lkpQg10IM3fq3hsez/h9BbTtaMe2kJ31ByDNHiDpbuo= X-ME-Sender: X-Sasl-enc: XuwwjBkdB06cmYae0LrGqEgWfEANohC+AzA8cuJ0u1yW 1488035864 Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2017 15:13:15 +0000 From: Daniel Shahaf To: Sebastian Gniazdowski Cc: zsh-workers@zsh.org Subject: Re: Feature request (#b)...(...) Message-ID: <20170225151315.GA4424@fujitsu.shahaf.local2> References: <1488011830.2241447.892433784.52D183B6@webmail.messagingengine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1488011830.2241447.892433784.52D183B6@webmail.messagingengine.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sebastian Gniazdowski wrote on Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 00:37:10 -0800: > Hello, > found a limitation in regex-like specification, maybe it's easy to add > extension? > > A pattern: (a|)(b|)(c|). Order of a, b, c matters, but any combination > of them will be accepted. The problem: |) in all three will also be > accepted. That's not a combination of a, b, c. This is onset of > something higher-level: "combination of". > > So maybe: ((a|)(b|)(c|))(#n). #n is for not-empty, resembles [[ -n. > > It looks like typical pattern situation: try something, decide if to > reject it. So maybe it's easy to add? Some regexp flavours support zero-width lookahead, which would allow this. For example, in Perl, % print -l {a,}{b,}{c,} | perl -lnE 'print if /(?=.)(a|)(b|)(c|)/' | wc -l 7 However, I have no opinion as to whether that should be added: I don't know how much effort would be involved, and for the given example there are alternative solutions that require no syntax changes. Cheers, Daniel