Summary
irregex documentation example for irregex-search does not match implementation
Metadata
- Id: c3efbf00a4ff199e92406120b547c28f47249123
- Trac id: 984
- Type: defect
- Reporter: ckeen
- Owner:
- Cc:
- Status: closed
- Component: extensions
- Estimated difficulty:
- Resolution: fixed
- Priority: minor
- Milestone: 4.9.0
- Version: 4.8.x
- Changetime: 2013-11-16 06:05:06 UTC
- Created: 2013-02-17 12:57:06 UTC
- Keywords:
Attachments
- c3efbf00a4ff199e92406120b547c28f47249123/attachments/0001-Fix-irregex-search-example-with-i-case-insensitive-o.patch
Description
The docs for irregex-search imply that an case-insensitive search is possible by passing the symbol 'i as third argument. This seems to be wrong:
#;1> (use irregex) #;2> (irregex-search "foobar" "abcFOOBARdef" 'i) Error: (irregex-search) not an exact integer: i
This happened with
; csi CHICKEN (c) 2008-2013, The Chicken Team (c) 2000-2007, Felix L. Winkelmann Version 4.8.2 (rev 623c46b) openbsd-unix-gnu-x86 [ manyargs dload ptables ] compiled 2013-02-03 on necronomicon.my.domain (OpenBSD)
Changes and comments
[2013-02-17 12:59:08 UTC] ckeen wrote:
My uneducated guess is that this should read
(irregex-search (irregex "foobar" 'i) "abcFOOBARdef")
[2013-11-12 20:55:06 UTC] sjamaan changed milestone from someday to 4.9.0
[2013-11-12 20:55:06 UTC] sjamaan wrote:
Let's do this for 4.9.0 too
[2013-11-15 08:42:48 UTC] evhan attached 0001-Fix-irregex-search-example-with-i-case-insensitive-o.patch (description=#f)
[2013-11-15 08:44:56 UTC] evhan wrote:
Replying to ckeen: > My uneducated guess is that this should read > > { > (irregex-search (irregex "foobar" 'i) "abcFOOBARdef") > }
I think that's right (and that's what's used in an example later in the docs, as well). I sent this change to Alex, so we can... Wait for that to be applied? Or just go ahead and change the docs, I dunno. Here's a patch for the manual either way.
[2013-11-15 21:02:35 UTC] sjamaan wrote:
Thanks Evan. I think we should wait and see what Alex says.
[2013-11-16 06:05:06 UTC] evhan changed status from new to closed
[2013-11-16 06:05:06 UTC] evhan set resolution to fixed
[2013-11-16 06:05:06 UTC] evhan wrote:
This change was accepted upstream. I also noticed another case where our docs don't match irregex proper's, which has the correct version:
-(irregex-search '(: "match" (? "es") "!") "matche!") => #<match> +(irregex-search '(: "match" (? "es") "!") "matche!") => #f
Because these are trivial fixes, I've gone ahead and pushed them to the manual, so this can be closed.
I also noticed two cases where both our unit and irregex proper don't behave like the docs say they should: #1064 #1065