Re: PATCH: rewrite of completion matching

[Peter Stephenson <pws@xxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 10:49:06 -0700
Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Skipping ahead, this is one bit that I wouldn't have understood from the
> documentation and that I'm not sure is correct:
> 
> } m:{[:alnum:][:upper:]}={[:alnum:][:lower:]}
> } 
> } is of very minor interest (match lower against upper provided some
> } alphanumeric, not specified but forced to be the same on both sides,
> } occurred in the previous character), and it's hard to think of good use
> } in practice.
> 
> Really "occurred in the previous character"?

No, I realised eventually that was nonsense.  That's not how equivalences
work.  This would say either an alphanumeric matches itself, or an upper
matches a lower.  I can't think of a good reason why you'd want to express
that in an equivalence class.

I think the doc may want changing to be clearer that [:stuff:] in
equivalence classes is of limited scope, but is much more widely useful
in ordinary character classes.

-- 
Peter Stephenson <pws@xxxxxxx>                  Software Engineer
CSR PLC, Churchill House, Cambridge Business Park, Cowley Road
Cambridge, CB4 0WZ, UK                          Tel: +44 (0)1223 692070