On Thu, 14 Dec 2000, Nathan Torkington wrote:
Deven T. Corzine writes:
I haven't even SEEN an example where the current behavior is actually
preferable than my proposed behavior, have you? (And I'd expect at least a
FEW, though I suspect there are probably more counterexamples.)
I
On 14 Dec 2000, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
"Deven" == Deven T Corzine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Deven I haven't even SEEN an example where the current behavior is
Deven actually preferable than my proposed behavior, have you? (And
Deven I'd expect at least a FEW, though I suspect there
"Deven" == Deven T Corzine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Deven What surprised me was how vigorously people would defend the
Deven status quo, and insist on the correctness of the current
Deven behavior without thinking it through.
No, I thought it through quite completely. As have others.
Deven
"Deven" == Deven T Corzine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Deven As for special-case rules, I believe that my proposed modification would
Deven REMOVE a special-case semantic rule, at the cost of added complexity at the
Deven implementation level. (The cost decision of whether that added complexity
On 15 Dec 2000, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
"Deven" == Deven T Corzine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Deven As for special-case rules, I believe that my proposed modification would
Deven REMOVE a special-case semantic rule, at the cost of added complexity at the
Deven implementation level.
On Thu, 14 Dec 2000, Jeff Pinyan wrote:
You could use my sexeger technique to get this behavior (possibly):
$string = "aaabbbcccdddeee";
# regex to be reversed: /b(.*?)d/
$revstr = reverse $string;
($match) = $revstr =~ /d(.*?)b/;
No, that doesn't quite work. It works when
On Thu, 14 Dec 2000, James Mastros wrote:
On Thu, Dec 14, 2000 at 04:10:12PM -0500, Deven T. Corzine wrote:
The crux of the problem is that non-greedy qualifiers don't affect the
"earliest match" behavior, which makes the matches more greedy than they
really ought to be.
Right. We've
On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, Deven T. Corzine wrote:
Not at all. I don't want it to keep looking after it finds the first
match. I want it to make sure that match isn't unnecessarily long, if
non-greedy matching was in use. Conceptually (I don't think this would be
a good implementation), you
Please give it a rest. I think everybody got it by now. Everybody
understands how the current implementation works and what the
semantics are, and you disagree with the current semantics. I think
that's the end of story since changing current default semantics is
simply not an option. We
"Deven T. Corzine" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've yet to see a concrete example of where the current behavior is
helpful,
What about matching C comments?
($first_comment) = $code =~ m!(/\*.*?\*/)!s;
# (ignore issues with quoted strings in $code
Works correctly under the current
More generally, it seems to me that you're hung up on the description
of "*?" as "shortest possible match". That's an ambiguous
Yup, that's a bit confusing. It's really "start matching as soon as
possible, and stop matching as soon as possible". (The usual greedy
one is, of course, "keep
On 15 Dec 2000, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
"Deven" == Deven T Corzine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Deven What surprised me was how vigorously people would defend the
Deven status quo, and insist on the correctness of the current
Deven behavior without thinking it through.
No, I thought it
More generally, it seems to me that you're hung up on the description
of "*?" as "shortest possible match". That's an ambiguous
Yup, that's a bit confusing. It's really "start matching as soon as
possible, and stop matching as soon as possible". (The usual greedy
one is, of course, "keep
Have you thought it through NOW, on a purely semantic level (in isolation
from implementation issues and historical precedent),
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: you keep using
the word "semantic", but I do not think you know what that word means.
--tom
[I delayed responding to this message because it was the longest.]
On Thu, 14 Dec 2000, Tom Christiansen wrote:
No question that's how it's been implemented. But WHY would anyone want
such behavior? When is it beneficial?
It is beneficial because this is how it's always been, because it
15 matches
Mail list logo
