On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 02:08:11PM +0100, Mojca Miklavec wrote:
> Is this a deliberate choice, a limitation of the grammar
> expressiveness, some misuse on my side that could/should/needs to be
> implemented in a different way, or does it count as a "bug" on the
> lpeg side?
That’s definitely the way parsing expression grammars work. Or rather:
that’s the way LPeg (the only parsing expression grammar) works :-)
> For example, I wouldn't expect a regexp "b+b" to fail on "bbb" just
> because "b+" would eat all three "b"s at once (the regexp "b+b" in
> fact finds "bbb", and I would expect a less-than-totally-greedy hit
> with lpeg as well). Or is my reasoning wrong here?
Your reasoning is correct, but applies to regular expressions, not
parsing-expression grammars.
Arthur
___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the
Wiki!
maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://context.aanhet.net
archive : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/
wiki : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________
