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
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 Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 03:42:01PM -0400, Eric Roode wrote:
Richard Proctor wrote:
I think what is needed is something along the line of :
$re = qz{ '(' \$re ')'
| \$re \$re
| [^()]+
};
Where qz is some hypothetical
On Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 03:47:57PM -0700, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
"Mark-Jason" == Mark-Jason Dominus [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Mark-Jason I have some ideas about how to do this, and I will try to
Mark-Jason write up an RFC this week.
"You want Icon, you know where to find it..." :)
