From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Nicolas Richard <theonewiththeevillook@yahoo.fr>
Subject: Re: Possible regexp bug in org.el
Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2014 12:16:49 +0200
Message-ID: <878urp1him.fsf@yahoo.fr>
References: <87ob0lmlg2.fsf@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Return-path: <emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:36102)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <theonewiththeevillook@yahoo.fr>) id 1WUvkj-0000Fa-5b
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 01 Apr 2014 06:17:16 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <theonewiththeevillook@yahoo.fr>) id 1WUvka-0004Ht-8q
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 01 Apr 2014 06:17:09 -0400
Received: from mxin.ulb.ac.be ([164.15.128.112]:11440)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <theonewiththeevillook@yahoo.fr>) id 1WUvka-0004Hh-2n
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 01 Apr 2014 06:17:00 -0400
In-Reply-To: <87ob0lmlg2.fsf@gmail.com> (Thorsten Jolitz's message of "Tue, 01
	Apr 2014 11:46:21 +0200")
List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." <emacs-orgmode.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-orgmode>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
To: Thorsten Jolitz <tjolitz@gmail.com>
Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org

Thorsten Jolitz <tjolitz@gmail.com> writes:
> here is a possible regexp bug in org.el I discovered by accident:
>
> ,---------------------------------------------
> | 7734:       (and (not (looking-back "^\*+"))
> `---------------------------------------------

It's almost certainly a typo, but it introduces no bug because '*' can't
bear its special meaning after '^', so the regexp engine will make it
match exactly the '*' character. But it'd be better written as "^*+"
(but this is not recommended) or, preferably, "^\\*+" indeed.

Here's the relevant manual excerpt from (info "(elisp) Regexp Special") :

>    *Please note:* For historical compatibility, special characters are
> treated as ordinary ones if they are in contexts where their special
> meanings make no sense.  For example, `*foo' treats `*' as ordinary
> since there is no preceding expression on which the `*' can act.  It is
> poor practice to depend on this behavior; quote the special character
> anyway, regardless of where it appears.

-- 
Nico.