Yes, that seems to fix things. Thanks for the prompt fix! I've committed the changes to my cl-pppcre github repo: https://github.com/slyrus/cl-ppcre/tree/property-bugfix thanks again for the prompt attention to this, Cyrus On Apr 8, 2012, at 4:42 AM, Edi Weitz wrote:

Yep, that seems to be a bug. I looked into it for a couple of minutes and I /think/ the patch below fixes it, but it's been a long time since I've looked into the ugly parts of CL-PPCRE, so take this with a grain of salt.

Cheers, Edi.

--- convert.lisp (revision 4677) +++ convert.lisp (working copy) @@ -701,11 +701,15 @@ (defmethod convert-compound-parse-tree ((token (eql :property)) parse-tree &key) "The case for \(:PROPERTY <name>) where <name> is a string." (declare #.*standard-optimize-settings*) + (declare (special accumulate-start-p)) + (setq accumulate-start-p nil) (make-instance 'char-class :test-function (resolve-property (second parse-tree))))

(defmethod convert-compound-parse-tree ((token (eql :inverted-property)) parse-tree &key) "The case for \(:INVERTED-PROPERTY <name>) where <name> is a string." (declare #.*standard-optimize-settings*) + (declare (special accumulate-start-p)) + (setq accumulate-start-p nil) (make-instance 'char-class :test-function (complement* (resolve-property (second parse-tree)))))

(defmethod convert-compound-parse-tree ((token (eql :flags)) parse-tree &key)

On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 4:04 AM, Cyrus Harmon <ch-lisp@bobobeach.com> wrote:

...

I was noticing some strange behavior with cxml-rng and David Lichteblau pointed out that the problem might be due to cl-ppcre and provided this example:

(let ((regex1 '(:SEQUENCE :start-anchor (:greedy-repetition 0 42 (:property digit-char-p)) #\-)) (regex2 '(:SEQUENCE :start-anchor (:property digit-char-p) #\-)) (str "8-")) (values (multiple-value-list (ppcre:scan regex1 str)) (multiple-value-list (ppcre:scan regex2 str))))

Regex1 works as expected (it matches 8-) but the second one doesn't. It's possible I don't understand (well more than possible) how :property works, but I would have expected either both or neither of these to fail. Could this be due to a bug in cl-ppcre?

thanks,

Cyrus

_______________________________________________ cl-ppcre-devel site list cl-ppcre-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/mailman/listinfo/cl-ppcre-devel

_______________________________________________ cl-ppcre-devel site list cl-ppcre-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/mailman/listinfo/cl-ppcre-devel