Re: Numbered regexps throw invalid regex error

[Tom]

Tim Landscheidt <tim <at> tim-landscheidt.de> writes:

> 
> I'd agree that the documentation should be more verbose, but
> I don't think that your argument that it'd be a bug is va-
> lid.  If someone added another pair of parentheses around
> "a\\(?1:b\\)", either they don't want to refer to it, thus
> using "\\(?:"


Why should they use "\\(?:" explicitly if they don't care about it?

I personally never use the shy group construct, because
if I don't want to use a groups' value then I simply ignore it.
It will capture some data, but who cares?

That's what the explicit numbering of groups is about that I can 
number those groups which I'm interested in and I can simply ignore
the others, beause I know that adding and removing groups should not
affect my explicitly numbered groups.

The proper solution is fixing the implementation, so it honors
the user's explicit choices, not forcing the user to change the
regexp.