------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1325 --- Comment #1 from Philip Hazel <[email protected]> 2012-12-18 09:24:58 --- On Mon, 17 Dec 2012, Chris wrote: > After '+' (possessive) and '?' (lazy), a union of the two: '*' (scrooge). It > depends actually in combination with the next token, as a logical 'lazy > possessive' makes no sense, it would result always in the least amount of > characters. This would be non-Perl compatible. There are precedents for PCRE having such features, but I can't say that I am very keen on the idea, especially as it isn't too much hassle to write the equivalent. > Notation and meaning/alias: > a?*b (?>a??b) > a**b (?>a*?b) > a+*b (?>a+?b) > a{n,m}*b (?>a{n,m}?b) > a{n,}*b (?>a{n,}?b) Another reason for being cautious is that this is a new paradigm ... depending on the following item as it does, so that a?* on it own is not meaningful. Philip -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.exim.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email -- ## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/pcre-dev
