>At the very least the writing could have mentioned this discrepancy. The original meaning of 'regular expression' is very specific, and has some significant i

>At the very least the writing could have mentioned this discrepancy. The original meaning of 'regular expression' is very specific, and has some significant implications which are lost with the now-common and less well-defined usage. Therefore, if anything needed having this discrepancy mentioned, it was your original statement "it is patently false that regular expressions cannot be recursive", as this is an issue where the distinction is crucial. It is good to see that you have now done so, though the way you have done so suggests there is nothing of practical interest in the formal definition, which, I suggest, would be patently false.