Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Document SRM regex approach/algorithms/terminology in README.md #60917

Closed
stephentoub opened this issue Sep 9, 2021 · 4 comments
Closed

Document SRM regex approach/algorithms/terminology in README.md #60917

stephentoub opened this issue Sep 9, 2021 · 4 comments

Comments

@stephentoub
Copy link
Member

stephentoub commented Sep 9, 2021

System.Text.RegularExpressions has a README.md file that provides an overview of the library's design. That should be updated, including adding details on the new NonBacktracking implementation and key terminology/algorithms used throughout it.

@stephentoub stephentoub transferred this issue from dotnet/runtimelab Oct 27, 2021
@dotnet-issue-labeler dotnet-issue-labeler bot added area-System.Text.RegularExpressions untriaged New issue has not been triaged by the area owner labels Oct 27, 2021
@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Oct 27, 2021

Tagging subscribers to this area: @eerhardt, @dotnet/area-system-text-regularexpressions
See info in area-owners.md if you want to be subscribed.

Issue Details

null

Author: stephentoub
Assignees: -
Labels:

area-System.Text.RegularExpressions, untriaged

Milestone: -

@stephentoub stephentoub removed the untriaged New issue has not been triaged by the area owner label Oct 27, 2021
@stephentoub stephentoub added this to the 7.0.0 milestone Oct 27, 2021
@joperezr
Copy link
Member

That README file has now been deleted as it was very out-of-date already given all the changes that went in for 7.0. That said, there are several issues in Regex that are documentation only that are meant to call out these kinds of designs. Do you think we should add an updated README back? or should we document this in the code via comments or perhaps via remarks on the relevant types?

@stephentoub
Copy link
Member Author

Comments in code are fine (preferable, IMHO)

@stephentoub
Copy link
Member Author

I'm going to close this. There are a lot of comments already, and while more would be wonderful and encouraged, it doesn't need to be tracked by an issue anymore nor block 7.0's release.

@ghost ghost locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Aug 24, 2022
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants