Re: PATCH: rewrite of completion matching

[Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Jun 16,  5:52pm, Peter Stephenson wrote:
} Subject: Re: PATCH: rewrite of completion matching
}
} Bart Schaefer wrote:
} > OK, then what do each of the following mean, and how could I figure it
} > out from the documentation?
} 
} Well, by reading it, obviously.

Touche.

Skipping ahead, this is one bit that I wouldn't have understood from the
documentation and that I'm not sure is correct:

} m:{[:alnum:][:upper:]}={[:alnum:][:lower:]}
} 
} is of very minor interest (match lower against upper provided some
} alphanumeric, not specified but forced to be the same on both sides,
} occurred in the previous character), and it's hard to think of good use
} in practice.

Really "occurred in the previous character"?  If one had written

  m:{a-zA-Z0-9A-Z}={A-Za-z0-9a-z}

That would not have implied two consecutive characters.  The entire class
on the left corresponds to the entire class on the right and is applied
to each character independent of the ones around it.  If what you said
is true, you've introduced something completely new.  So I'd have had
the expectation that m:{[:alnum:][:upper:]}={[:alnum:][:lower:]} is at
best a long way to write m:{[:upper:]}={[:lower:]} and at worst would
be the same as m:{[:alnum:]}={[:alnum:]}.

I'm going to have to reply to the rest of this later, out of time ...