From xemacs-m  Thu Jan 30 13:01:57 1997
Received: from server21.digital.fr (server21.digital.fr [193.56.15.21])
          by xemacs.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP
	  id NAA14909 for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Thu, 30 Jan 1997 13:01:55 -0600 (CST)
Received: from mail.vbo.dec.com (mail.vbo.dec.com [16.36.208.34]) by server21.digital.fr (8.7.5/8.7) with ESMTP id UAA12136 for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Thu, 30 Jan 1997 20:06:04 +0100 (MET)
Received: from vbormc.vbo.dec.com (vbormc.vbo.dec.com [16.36.208.94]) by mail.vbo.dec.com (8.7.3/8.7) with ESMTP id UAA06661 for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Thu, 30 Jan 1997 20:03:39 +0100 (MET)
Received: from clusaz.gvc.dec.com (clusaz.gvc.dec.com [16.184.176.21]) by vbormc.vbo.dec.com (8.7.3/8.7) with SMTP id TAA13312 for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Thu, 30 Jan 1997 19:58:46 +0100
Received: from fornet.gvc.dec.com by clusaz.gvc.dec.com (5.65v3.2/1.1.10.5/04Jan97-0611PM)
	id AA04899; Thu, 30 Jan 1997 20:01:39 +0100
Received: by fornet.gvc.dec.com; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/23Sep96-1024AM)
	id AA12720; Thu, 30 Jan 1997 20:01:39 +0100
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 20:01:39 +0100
Message-Id: <9701301901.AA12720@fornet.gvc.dec.com>
From: Steve Carney <carney@gvc.dec.com>
To: xemacs-beta@xemacs.org
Subject: RE: regex dump on DUNIX
In-Reply-To: <QQcati23793.199701301734@crystal.WonderWorks.COM>
References: <9701301207.AA12266@fornet.gvc.dec.com>
	<QQcati23793.199701301734@crystal.WonderWorks.COM>
Reply-To: carney@gvc.dec.com
X-Face: (d*XRr}%:j,s*8+_o];-"-<<Sd1>H?Ds*>_vV}6DVjhNkjSRW0z^9[WBrbtMma>lyW6u>r(
 9U_m6J0kh7U=q?(h[7<YtS!Cu[Yl)D_XSCy5+tw>_2qr&4S=n|A*ScV]5BR{3]YXk$!,4l2vh9B]}&
 0p"&#\I

kyle_jones@wonderworks.com (Kyle Jones) writes,
in <QQcati23793.199701301734@crystal.WonderWorks.COM>:

>Putting expr* next to expr+ where both exprs can match the same
>text makes the v19 regex code go blooey on long matches.  It has
>been this way for years.  The answer is, near as I can tell,
>"don't do that."  I purged VM of such expressions as part of the
>ordeal of porting to v19 Emacs.

That's it!  Simply enclosing the nasty regexs in \\( .. \\) seems to
work.  This fixes a regex that has been tormenting me for quite a while.

Thanks,
        Steve


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Steve Carney        TEL:[41](22)782.90.60  http://www-digital.cern.ch/carney/
carney@gvc.dec.com  FAX:[41](22)782.94.92 

