W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > March 2009

[Bug 5348] [FO] Back-references: "sufficiently many"

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 02:15:04 +0000
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1Lkqjo-0005bS-A5@wiggum.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5348


Andy Agrawal <guerneca2003@yahoo.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |guerneca2003@yahoo.com




--- Comment #5 from Andy Agrawal <guerneca2003@yahoo.com>  2009-03-21 02:15:04 ---
The way this is worded seems to imply that at most 99 backreferences are
allowed. Is this the intent?

The sentence I'm referring to is:

"The construct \N where N is a
single digit is always recognized as a back-reference; if this is followed by
further digits, these digits are taken to be part of the back-reference if and
only if the resulting number NN is such that the back-reference is preceded by
NN or more opening parentheses"

Is there any reason to impose a limit of 99? Of course, I can't imagine any
real use cases that would need more than 99 backreferences, but why impose an
arbitrary limit in the language itself?


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Saturday, 21 March 2009 02:15:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:14:56 GMT