• Home
  • Line#
  • Scopes#
  • Navigate#
  • Raw
  • Download
1# regular expression test set
2# Lines are at least three fields, separated by one or more tabs.  "" stands
3# for an empty field.  First field is an RE.  Second field is flags.  If
4# C flag given, regcomp() is expected to fail, and the third field is the
5# error name (minus the leading REG_).
6#
7# Otherwise it is expected to succeed, and the third field is the string to
8# try matching it against.  If there is no fourth field, the match is
9# expected to fail.  If there is a fourth field, it is the substring that
10# the RE is expected to match.  If there is a fifth field, it is a comma-
11# separated list of what the subexpressions should match, with - indicating
12# no match for that one.  In both the fourth and fifth fields, a (sub)field
13# starting with @ indicates that the (sub)expression is expected to match
14# a null string followed by the stuff after the @; this provides a way to
15# test where null strings match.  The character `N' in REs and strings
16# is newline, `S' is space, `T' is tab, `Z' is NUL.
17#
18# The full list of flags:
19#	-	placeholder, does nothing
20#	b	RE is a BRE, not an ERE
21#	&	try it as both an ERE and a BRE
22#	C	regcomp() error expected, third field is error name
23#	i	REG_ICASE
24#	m	("mundane") REG_NOSPEC
25#	s	REG_NOSUB (not really testable)
26#	n	REG_NEWLINE
27#	^	REG_NOTBOL
28#	$	REG_NOTEOL
29#	#	REG_STARTEND (see below)
30#	p	REG_PEND
31#
32# For REG_STARTEND, the start/end offsets are those of the substring
33# enclosed in ().
34
35# basics
36a		&	a	a
37abc		&	abc	abc
38abc|de		-	abc	abc
39a|b|c		-	abc	a
40
41# parentheses and perversions thereof
42a(b)c		-	abc	abc
43a\(b\)c		b	abc	abc
44a(		C	EPAREN
45a(		b	a(	a(
46a\(		-	a(	a(
47a\(		bC	EPAREN
48a\(b		bC	EPAREN
49a(b		C	EPAREN
50a(b		b	a(b	a(b
51# gag me with a right parenthesis -- 1003.2 goofed here (my fault, partly)
52a)		-	a)	a)
53)		-	)	)
54# end gagging (in a just world, those *should* give EPAREN)
55a)		b	a)	a)
56a\)		bC	EPAREN
57\)		bC	EPAREN
58a()b		-	ab	ab
59a\(\)b		b	ab	ab
60
61# anchoring and REG_NEWLINE
62^abc$		&	abc	abc
63a^b		-	a^b
64a^b		b	a^b	a^b
65a$b		-	a$b
66a$b		b	a$b	a$b
67^		&	abc	@abc
68$		&	abc	@
69^$		&	""	@
70$^		-	""	@
71\($\)\(^\)	b	""	@
72# stop retching, those are legitimate (although disgusting)
73^^		-	""	@
74$$		-	""	@
75b$		&	abNc
76b$		&n	abNc	b
77^b$		&	aNbNc
78^b$		&n	aNbNc	b
79^$		&n	aNNb	@Nb
80^$		n	abc
81^$		n	abcN	@
82$^		n	aNNb	@Nb
83\($\)\(^\)	bn	aNNb	@Nb
84^^		n^	aNNb	@Nb
85$$		n	aNNb	@NN
86^a		^	a
87a$		$	a
88^a		^n	aNb
89^b		^n	aNb	b
90a$		$n	bNa
91b$		$n	bNa	b
92a*(^b$)c*	-	b	b
93a*\(^b$\)c*	b	b	b
94
95# certain syntax errors and non-errors
96|		C	EMPTY
97|		b	|	|
98*		C	BADRPT
99*		b	*	*
100+		C	BADRPT
101?		C	BADRPT
102""		&C	EMPTY
103()		-	abc	@abc
104\(\)		b	abc	@abc
105a||b		C	EMPTY
106|ab		C	EMPTY
107ab|		C	EMPTY
108(|a)b		C	EMPTY
109(a|)b		C	EMPTY
110(*a)		C	BADRPT
111(+a)		C	BADRPT
112(?a)		C	BADRPT
113({1}a)		C	BADRPT
114\(\{1\}a\)	bC	BADRPT
115(a|*b)		C	BADRPT
116(a|+b)		C	BADRPT
117(a|?b)		C	BADRPT
118(a|{1}b)	C	BADRPT
119^*		C	BADRPT
120^*		b	*	*
121^+		C	BADRPT
122^?		C	BADRPT
123^{1}		C	BADRPT
124^\{1\}		bC	BADRPT
125
126# metacharacters, backslashes
127a.c		&	abc	abc
128a[bc]d		&	abd	abd
129a\*c		&	a*c	a*c
130a\\b		&	a\b	a\b
131a\\\*b		&	a\*b	a\*b
132# The following test is wrong.  Using \b in an BRE or ERE is undefined.
133# a\bc		&	abc	abc
134a\		&C	EESCAPE
135a\\bc		&	a\bc	a\bc
136\{		bC	BADRPT
137a\[b		&	a[b	a[b
138a[b		&C	EBRACK
139# trailing $ is a peculiar special case for the BRE code
140a$		&	a	a
141a$		&	a$
142a\$		&	a
143a\$		&	a$	a$
144a\\$		&	a
145a\\$		&	a$
146a\\$		&	a\$
147a\\$		&	a\	a\
148
149# back references, ugh
150a\(b\)\2c	bC	ESUBREG
151a\(b\1\)c	bC	ESUBREG
152a\(b*\)c\1d	b	abbcbbd	abbcbbd	bb
153a\(b*\)c\1d	b	abbcbd
154a\(b*\)c\1d	b	abbcbbbd
155^\(.\)\1	b	abc
156a\([bc]\)\1d	b	abcdabbd	abbd	b
157a\(\([bc]\)\2\)*d	b	abbccd	abbccd
158a\(\([bc]\)\2\)*d	b	abbcbd
159# actually, this next one probably ought to fail, but the spec is unclear
160a\(\(b\)*\2\)*d		b	abbbd	abbbd
161# here is a case that no NFA implementation does right
162\(ab*\)[ab]*\1	b	ababaaa	ababaaa	a
163# check out normal matching in the presence of back refs
164\(a\)\1bcd	b	aabcd	aabcd
165\(a\)\1bc*d	b	aabcd	aabcd
166\(a\)\1bc*d	b	aabd	aabd
167\(a\)\1bc*d	b	aabcccd	aabcccd
168\(a\)\1bc*[ce]d	b	aabcccd	aabcccd
169^\(a\)\1b\(c\)*cd$	b	aabcccd	aabcccd
170
171# ordinary repetitions
172ab*c		&	abc	abc
173ab+c		-	abc	abc
174ab?c		-	abc	abc
175a\(*\)b		b	a*b	a*b
176a\(**\)b	b	ab	ab
177a\(***\)b	bC	BADRPT
178*a		b	*a	*a
179**a		b	a	a
180***a		bC	BADRPT
181
182# the dreaded bounded repetitions
183# The following two tests are not correct:
184#{		&	{	{
185#{abc		&	{abc	{abc
186# '{' is always a special char outside bracket expressions.  So test ony BRE:
187{		b	{	{
188{abc		b	{abc	{abc
189{1		C	BADRPT
190{1}		C	BADRPT
191# Same reason as for the two tests above:
192#a{b		&	a{b	a{b
193a{b		b	a{b	a{b
194a{1}b		-	ab	ab
195a\{1\}b		b	ab	ab
196a{1,}b		-	ab	ab
197a\{1,\}b	b	ab	ab
198a{1,2}b		-	aab	aab
199a\{1,2\}b	b	aab	aab
200a{1		C	EBRACE
201a\{1		bC	EBRACE
202a{1a		C	EBRACE
203a\{1a		bC	EBRACE
204a{1a}		C	BADBR
205a\{1a\}		bC	BADBR
206# These four tests checks for undefined behavior.  Our implementation does
207# something different.
208#a{,2}		-	a{,2}	a{,2}
209#a\{,2\}		bC	BADBR
210#a{,}		-	a{,}	a{,}
211#a\{,\}		bC	BADBR
212a{1,x}		C	BADBR
213a\{1,x\}	bC	BADBR
214a{1,x		C	EBRACE
215a\{1,x		bC	EBRACE
216# These two tests probably fails due to an arbitrary limit on the number of
217# repetitions in the other implementation.
218#a{300}		C	BADBR
219#a\{300\}	bC	BADBR
220a{1,0}		C	BADBR
221a\{1,0\}	bC	BADBR
222ab{0,0}c	-	abcac	ac
223ab\{0,0\}c	b	abcac	ac
224ab{0,1}c	-	abcac	abc
225ab\{0,1\}c	b	abcac	abc
226ab{0,3}c	-	abbcac	abbc
227ab\{0,3\}c	b	abbcac	abbc
228ab{1,1}c	-	acabc	abc
229ab\{1,1\}c	b	acabc	abc
230ab{1,3}c	-	acabc	abc
231ab\{1,3\}c	b	acabc	abc
232ab{2,2}c	-	abcabbc	abbc
233ab\{2,2\}c	b	abcabbc	abbc
234ab{2,4}c	-	abcabbc	abbc
235ab\{2,4\}c	b	abcabbc	abbc
236((a{1,10}){1,10}){1,10}	-	a	a	a,a
237
238# multiple repetitions
239# Wow, there is serious disconnect here.  The ERE grammar is like this:
240# ERE_expression : one_char_or_coll_elem_ERE
241#                | '^'
242#                | '$'
243#                | '(' extended_reg_exp ')'
244#                | ERE_expression ERE_dupl_symbol
245#                ;
246# where ERE_dupl_symbol is any of the repetition methods.  It is clear from
247# this that consecutive repetition is OK.  On top of this, the one test not
248# marked as failing must fail.  For BREs the situation is different, so we
249# use the four tests.
250#a**		&C	BADRPT
251a**		bC	BADRPT
252#a++		C	BADRPT
253#a??		C	BADRPT
254#a*+		C	BADRPT
255#a*?		C	BADRPT
256#a+*		C	BADRPT
257#a+?		C	BADRPT
258#a?*		C	BADRPT
259#a?+		C	BADRPT
260#a{1}{1}		C	BADRPT
261#a*{1}		C	BADRPT
262#a+{1}		C	BADRPT
263#a?{1}		C	BADRPT
264#a{1}*		C	BADRPT
265#a{1}+		C	BADRPT
266#a{1}?		C	BADRPT
267#a*{b}		-	a{b}	a{b}
268a\{1\}\{1\}	bC	BADRPT
269a*\{1\}		bC	BADRPT
270a\{1\}*		bC	BADRPT
271
272# brackets, and numerous perversions thereof
273a[b]c		&	abc	abc
274a[ab]c		&	abc	abc
275a[^ab]c		&	adc	adc
276a[]b]c		&	a]c	a]c
277a[[b]c		&	a[c	a[c
278a[-b]c		&	a-c	a-c
279a[^]b]c		&	adc	adc
280a[^-b]c		&	adc	adc
281a[b-]c		&	a-c	a-c
282a[b		&C	EBRACK
283a[]		&C	EBRACK
284a[1-3]c		&	a2c	a2c
285a[3-1]c		&C	ERANGE
286a[1-3-5]c	&C	ERANGE
287a[[.-.]--]c	&	a-c	a-c
288# I don't thing the error value should be ERANGE since a[1-] would be
289# valid, too.  Expect EBRACK.
290#a[1-		&C	ERANGE
291a[1-		&C	EBRACK
292a[[.		&C	EBRACK
293a[[.x		&C	EBRACK
294a[[.x.		&C	EBRACK
295a[[.x.]		&C	EBRACK
296a[[.x.]]	&	ax	ax
297a[[.x,.]]	&C	ECOLLATE
298# This test is invalid.  "one" is no collating symbol in any standardized
299# locale.
300# a[[.one.]]b	&	a1b	a1b
301a[[.notdef.]]b	&C	ECOLLATE
302a[[.].]]b	&	a]b	a]b
303a[[:alpha:]]c	&	abc	abc
304a[[:notdef:]]c	&C	ECTYPE
305a[[:		&C	EBRACK
306a[[:alpha	&C	EBRACK
307a[[:alpha:]	&C	EBRACK
308a[[:alpha,:]	&C	ECTYPE
309a[[:]:]]b	&C	ECTYPE
310a[[:-:]]b	&C	ECTYPE
311a[[:alph:]]	&C	ECTYPE
312a[[:alphabet:]]	&C	ECTYPE
313[[:alnum:]]+	-	-%@a0X-	a0X
314[[:alpha:]]+	-	-%@aX0-	aX
315[[:blank:]]+	-	aSSTb	SST
316[[:cntrl:]]+	-	aNTb	NT
317[[:digit:]]+	-	a019b	019
318[[:graph:]]+	-	Sa%bS	a%b
319[[:lower:]]+	-	AabC	ab
320[[:print:]]+	-	NaSbN	aSb
321[[:punct:]]+	-	S%-&T	%-&
322[[:space:]]+	-	aSNTb	SNT
323[[:upper:]]+	-	aBCd	BC
324[[:xdigit:]]+	-	p0f3Cq	0f3C
325a[[=b=]]c	&	abc	abc
326a[[=		&C	EBRACK
327a[[=b		&C	EBRACK
328a[[=b=		&C	EBRACK
329a[[=b=]		&C	EBRACK
330a[[=b,=]]	&C	ECOLLATE
331# This test is invalid.  "one" is no collating symbol in any standardized
332# locale.
333#a[[=one=]]b	&	a1b	a1b
334
335# complexities
336a(((b)))c	-	abc	abc
337a(b|(c))d	-	abd	abd
338a(b*|c)d	-	abbd	abbd
339# just gotta have one DFA-buster, of course
340a[ab]{20}	-	aaaaabaaaabaaaabaaaab	aaaaabaaaabaaaabaaaab
341# and an inline expansion in case somebody gets tricky
342a[ab][ab][ab][ab][ab][ab][ab][ab][ab][ab][ab][ab][ab][ab][ab][ab][ab][ab][ab][ab]	-	aaaaabaaaabaaaabaaaab	aaaaabaaaabaaaabaaaab
343# and in case somebody just slips in an NFA...
344a[ab][ab][ab][ab][ab][ab][ab][ab][ab][ab][ab][ab][ab][ab][ab][ab][ab][ab][ab][ab](wee|week)(knights|night)	-	aaaaabaaaabaaaabaaaabweeknights	aaaaabaaaabaaaabaaaabweeknights
345# fish for anomalies as the number of states passes 32
34612345678901234567890123456789	-	a12345678901234567890123456789b	12345678901234567890123456789
347123456789012345678901234567890	-	a123456789012345678901234567890b	123456789012345678901234567890
3481234567890123456789012345678901	-	a1234567890123456789012345678901b	1234567890123456789012345678901
34912345678901234567890123456789012	-	a12345678901234567890123456789012b	12345678901234567890123456789012
350123456789012345678901234567890123	-	a123456789012345678901234567890123b	123456789012345678901234567890123
351# and one really big one, beyond any plausible word width
3521234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890	-	a1234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890b	1234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890
353# fish for problems as brackets go past 8
354[ab][cd][ef][gh][ij][kl][mn]	-	xacegikmoq	acegikm
355[ab][cd][ef][gh][ij][kl][mn][op]	-	xacegikmoq	acegikmo
356[ab][cd][ef][gh][ij][kl][mn][op][qr]	-	xacegikmoqy	acegikmoq
357[ab][cd][ef][gh][ij][kl][mn][op][q]	-	xacegikmoqy	acegikmoq
358
359# subtleties of matching
360abc		&	xabcy	abc
361a\(b\)?c\1d	b	acd
362aBc		i	Abc	Abc
363a[Bc]*d		i	abBCcd	abBCcd
3640[[:upper:]]1	&i	0a1	0a1
3650[[:lower:]]1	&i	0A1	0A1
366a[^b]c		&i	abc
367a[^b]c		&i	aBc
368a[^b]c		&i	adc	adc
369[a]b[c]		-	abc	abc
370[a]b[a]		-	aba	aba
371[abc]b[abc]	-	abc	abc
372[abc]b[abd]	-	abd	abd
373a(b?c)+d	-	accd	accd
374(wee|week)(knights|night)	-	weeknights	weeknights
375(we|wee|week|frob)(knights|night|day)	-	weeknights	weeknights
376a[bc]d		-	xyzaaabcaababdacd	abd
377a[ab]c		-	aaabc	abc
378abc		s	abc	abc
379()		s	abc	@abc
380a*		&	b	@b
381
382# Let's have some fun -- try to match a C comment.
383# first the obvious, which looks okay at first glance...
384/\*.*\*/	-	/*x*/	/*x*/
385# but...
386/\*.*\*/	-	/*x*/y/*z*/	/*x*/y/*z*/
387# okay, we must not match */ inside; try to do that...
388/\*([^*]|\*[^/])*\*/	-	/*x*/	/*x*/
389/\*([^*]|\*[^/])*\*/	-	/*x*/y/*z*/	/*x*/
390# but...
391/\*([^*]|\*[^/])*\*/	-	/*x**/y/*z*/	/*x**/y/*z*/
392# and a still fancier version, which does it right (I think)...
393/\*([^*]|\*+[^*/])*\*+/	-	/*x*/	/*x*/
394/\*([^*]|\*+[^*/])*\*+/	-	/*x*/y/*z*/	/*x*/
395/\*([^*]|\*+[^*/])*\*+/	-	/*x**/y/*z*/	/*x**/
396/\*([^*]|\*+[^*/])*\*+/	-	/*x****/y/*z*/	/*x****/
397/\*([^*]|\*+[^*/])*\*+/	-	/*x**x*/y/*z*/	/*x**x*/
398/\*([^*]|\*+[^*/])*\*+/	-	/*x***x/y/*z*/	/*x***x/y/*z*/
399
400# subexpressions
401.*		-	abc	abc	-
402a(b)(c)d	-	abcd	abcd	b,c
403a(((b)))c	-	abc	abc	b,b,b
404a(b|(c))d	-	abd	abd	b,-
405a(b*|c|e)d	-	abbd	abbd	bb
406a(b*|c|e)d	-	acd	acd	c
407a(b*|c|e)d	-	ad	ad	@d
408a(b?)c		-	abc	abc	b
409a(b?)c		-	ac	ac	@c
410a(b+)c		-	abc	abc	b
411a(b+)c		-	abbbc	abbbc	bbb
412a(b*)c		-	ac	ac	@c
413(a|ab)(bc([de]+)f|cde)	-	abcdef	abcdef	a,bcdef,de
414# the regression tester only asks for 9 subexpressions
415a(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g)(h)(i)(j)k	-	abcdefghijk	abcdefghijk	b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j
416a(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g)(h)(i)(j)(k)l	-	abcdefghijkl	abcdefghijkl	b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k
417a([bc]?)c	-	abc	abc	b
418a([bc]?)c	-	ac	ac	@c
419a([bc]+)c	-	abc	abc	b
420a([bc]+)c	-	abcc	abcc	bc
421a([bc]+)bc	-	abcbc	abcbc	bc
422a(bb+|b)b	-	abb	abb	b
423a(bbb+|bb+|b)b	-	abb	abb	b
424a(bbb+|bb+|b)b	-	abbb	abbb	bb
425a(bbb+|bb+|b)bb	-	abbb	abbb	b
426(.*).*		-	abcdef	abcdef	abcdef
427(a*)*		-	bc	@b	@b
428
429# do we get the right subexpression when it is used more than once?
430a(b|c)*d	-	ad	ad	-
431a(b|c)*d	-	abcd	abcd	c
432a(b|c)+d	-	abd	abd	b
433a(b|c)+d	-	abcd	abcd	c
434a(b|c?)+d	-	ad	ad	@d
435a(b|c?)+d	-	abcd	abcd	c
436a(b|c){0,0}d	-	ad	ad	-
437a(b|c){0,1}d	-	ad	ad	-
438a(b|c){0,1}d	-	abd	abd	b
439a(b|c){0,2}d	-	ad	ad	-
440a(b|c){0,2}d	-	abcd	abcd	c
441a(b|c){0,}d	-	ad	ad	-
442a(b|c){0,}d	-	abcd	abcd	c
443a(b|c){1,1}d	-	abd	abd	b
444a(b|c){1,1}d	-	acd	acd	c
445a(b|c){1,2}d	-	abd	abd	b
446a(b|c){1,2}d	-	abcd	abcd	c
447a(b|c){1,}d	-	abd	abd	b
448a(b|c){1,}d	-	abcd	abcd	c
449a(b|c){2,2}d	-	acbd	acbd	b
450a(b|c){2,2}d	-	abcd	abcd	c
451a(b|c){2,4}d	-	abcd	abcd	c
452a(b|c){2,4}d	-	abcbd	abcbd	b
453a(b|c){2,4}d	-	abcbcd	abcbcd	c
454a(b|c){2,}d	-	abcd	abcd	c
455a(b|c){2,}d	-	abcbd	abcbd	b
456a(b+|((c)*))+d	-	abd	abd	b,-,-
457a(b+|((c)*))+d	-	abcd	abcd	c,c,c
458
459# check out the STARTEND option
460[abc]		&#	a(b)c	b
461[abc]		&#	a(d)c
462[abc]		&#	a(bc)d	b
463[abc]		&#	a(dc)d	c
464.		&#	a()c
465b.*c		&#	b(bc)c	bc
466b.*		&#	b(bc)c	bc
467.*c		&#	b(bc)c	bc
468
469# plain strings, with the NOSPEC flag
470abc		m	abc	abc
471abc		m	xabcy	abc
472abc		m	xyz
473a*b		m	aba*b	a*b
474a*b		m	ab
475""		mC	EMPTY
476
477# cases involving NULs
478aZb		&	a	a
479aZb		&p	a
480aZb		&p#	(aZb)	aZb
481aZ*b		&p#	(ab)	ab
482a.b		&#	(aZb)	aZb
483a.*		&#	(aZb)c	aZb
484
485# word boundaries (ick)
486[[:<:]]a	&	a	a
487[[:<:]]a	&	ba
488[[:<:]]a	&	-a	a
489a[[:>:]]	&	a	a
490a[[:>:]]	&	ab
491a[[:>:]]	&	a-	a
492[[:<:]]a.c[[:>:]]	&	axcd-dayc-dazce-abc	abc
493[[:<:]]a.c[[:>:]]	&	axcd-dayc-dazce-abc-q	abc
494[[:<:]]a.c[[:>:]]	&	axc-dayc-dazce-abc	axc
495[[:<:]]b.c[[:>:]]	&	a_bxc-byc_d-bzc-q	bzc
496[[:<:]].x..[[:>:]]	&	y_xa_-_xb_y-_xc_-axdc	_xc_
497[[:<:]]a_b[[:>:]]	&	x_a_b
498
499# past problems, and suspected problems
500(A[1])|(A[2])|(A[3])|(A[4])|(A[5])|(A[6])|(A[7])|(A[8])|(A[9])|(A[A])	-	A1	A1
501abcdefghijklmnop	i	abcdefghijklmnop	abcdefghijklmnop
502abcdefghijklmnopqrstuv	i	abcdefghijklmnopqrstuv	abcdefghijklmnopqrstuv
503(ALAK)|(ALT[AB])|(CC[123]1)|(CM[123]1)|(GAMC)|(LC[23][EO ])|(SEM[1234])|(SL[ES][12])|(SLWW)|(SLF )|(SLDT)|(VWH[12])|(WH[34][EW])|(WP1[ESN])	-	CC11	CC11
504CC[13]1|a{21}[23][EO][123][Es][12]a{15}aa[34][EW]aaaaaaa[X]a	-	CC11	CC11
505Char \([a-z0-9_]*\)\[.*	b	Char xyz[k	Char xyz[k	xyz
506a?b	-	ab	ab
507-\{0,1\}[0-9]*$	b	-5	-5
508a*a*a*a*a*a*a*	&	aaaaaa	aaaaaa
509(\b){0}	-	x	@x	-
510\(\b\)\{0,0\}	b	abc	@abc	-
511a(\b){0}c	-	ac	ac	-
512a(.*)b(\1){0}c	-	abc	abc	@bc,-
513a(.*)b(\1){0}c	-	axbc	axbc	x,-
514
515a\(\(b*\)\)c\1d	b	abbcbbd	abbcbbd	bb,bb
516a\(\([bc]\)\)\2d	b	abcdabbd	abbd	b,b
517a\(\(\(\([bc]\)\)\3\)\)*d	b	abbccd	abbccd	cc,cc,c,c
518a(b)(c)d	-	abcd	abcd	b,c
519a(((b)))c	-	abc	abc	b,b,b
520a(((b|(((c))))))d	-	abd	abd	b,b,b,-,-,-
521a(((b*|c|e)))d	-	abbd	abbd	bb,bb,bb
522a((b|c)){0,0}d	-	ad	ad	-,-
523a((b|c)){0,1}d	-	abd	abd	b,b
524a((b|c)){0,2}d	-	abcd	abcd	c,c
525a((b+|((c)*)))+d	-	abd	abd	b,b,-,-
526a((b+|((c)*)))+d	-	abcd	abcd	c,c,c,c
527(((\b))){0}	-	x	@x	-,-,-
528a(((.*)))b((\2)){0}c	-	abc	abc	@bc,@bc,@bc,-,-
529a(((.*)))b((\1)){0}c	-	axbc	axbc	x,x,x,-,-
530
531\b	&	SaT	@aT
532\b	&	aT	@aT
533a.*\b	&	abT	ab
534\b	&	STSS
535\B	&	abc	@bc
536\B	&	aSbTc
537\B	&	SaT	@SaT
538\B	&	aSTSb	@TSb
539
540o$($|.)        -       oN
541o$($|.)        -       op
542o$($|.)        -       o       o
543