Anyway I believe our two regexes are equivalent.
This is irrelevant. It is the bug hunt I'm after. I already know that the regex in >>65 is correct, otherwise I wouldn't have posted it.
It also worked fine for me in the REPL with calling irregex-match on all the tests
OK, so >>65 cannot be made to fail in the REPL. This is my result as well.
but however it wasn't working with calls to irregex compilation in a running instance of SchemeBBS
All right, provide any firm statement that names a string that fails this way.
Just look at all the failures in this thread. Anyway [...]
No, this is not an answer. Name the exact quote attempt in this thread that failed with >>65. The only quote attempts after >>65 was posted, that are not fully links, are ">>64-67" and ">>1,10-20,30" from >>67. They both stop being links at the hyphen. Do these fail with >>65 and "irregex compilation in a running instance of SchemeBBS"? Yes or no. This is programming, not religion. I need any firm assertion that I can then verify myself as being true or false.