On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 07:23:29PM -0600, Tom Christiansen wrote: > Dear Glenn and Karl, > > +=============================+ > | SUMMARY of Exposition Below | > v-----------------------------v > > * I fully agree there's a bug. > > * I believe Karl has produced a reasonable patch to fix it. > > * I wonder what *else* might/should also change in tandem > with this estimable amendment so as to: > > ? avoid evoking or astonishing any hobgoblins of > foolish inconsistency (ie: breaking bad expectations) > > ? what (if any?) backwards-compat story might need > spinning (ie, breaking code, albeit cum credible Apologia) I am seldomly in favour of new warnings for existing code, but perhaps use of \NNN, with NNN > 377 in a regexp should trigger a warning, as its behaviour is surprising - not to mention some code out there may rely on the current (buggy) behaviour. AbigailThread Previous | Thread Next