Subject: [Cellar] Recursive pattern

From: Steve Lhomme <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 09:55:46 +0100

In the current ABNF notation the recursive elements are not handled properly.

I added some changes to remove the ambiguity. It's more verbose (more
parenthesis) but it's an accurate pattern matching with no ambiguous
part.

Anyone has comments of can I merge ?

EBML: https://github.com/Matroska-Org/ebml-specification/pull/113
Matroska: https://github.com/Matroska-Org/matroska-specification/pull/57

-- 
Steve Lhomme
Matroska association Chairman

---

From: Steve Lhomme <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 09:59:49 +0100

Before that change the pattern was "1*(" EBMLPathAtom ")" but the '1'
could be part of the name of the parent element. Now it's "(1*("
EBMLPathAtom "))" so it cannot be misinterpreted. The double (( )) is
necessary so the 1* ABNF occurence is applied to the whole path, not
just the first character.