Re: Possible Regexp documentation bug

Hi Konrad,

On Sun, 15 Jul 2007, Konrad Meyer wrote:

>> >  While =~ is not an operator, it is a method of String and Regexp
>> >  instances, Regexp.escape (from quick irb testing) returns a string.
>> >  And String#=~ expects a Regexp instance, not a string. So I think it
>> >  would be correct to change that to something like `Regexp.escape(str)
>> >  =~ Regexp.new(str) will be true'.

I didn't spot this when replying to your previous message, but I believe 
that it's still incorrect, because it treats the unescaped str as a valid 
regexp (on the right) and compares it with the escaped form (on the left) 
as though that were the original string.

I guess that str =~ Regexp.new(Regexp.escape(str)) is correct?

> I think the bit after the `and' is excessive. It's not the job of this 
> method's documentation to clarify that str =~ rxp is the same as rxp =~ 
> str.

OK, then which is the preferred form in Ruby? I'm more accustomed to the 
Perl form, where str =~ rxp.

> Er, and also the changelog entry for documentation is probably a
> little excessive.

Sorry, I'm new here, I was just following the advice on the website. I'll 
remove it.

Cheers, Chris.
-- 
_____ __     _
\  __/ / ,__(_)_  | Chris Wilson <0000 at qwirx.com> - Cambs UK |
/ (_/ ,\/ _/ /_ \ | Security/C/C++/Java/Perl/SQL/HTML Developer |
\ _/_/_/_//_/___/ | We are GNU-free your mind-and your software |