On Tue, 30 Jul 2019, Zoltán Herczeg wrote: > > (*MOVE) is a small addition and solves ND's non-atomic assertion > > requirement. Perhaps we can just start with (*MOVE). > > Yes, if we choose this option to implement.
It occurs to me that (*MOVE) gives scope for infinite loops: (*MARK:X)(?:abc(*MOVE:X))+ That would loop for ever, wouldn't it? It seems rather a dangerous thing to implement, unless there is some easy way to catch such cases. I am beginning to agree with you about "non-atomic assertions" not really being assertions. Perhaps they could be renamed: (*napla: becomes (*prg: position reset group (*naplb: becomes (*prgb: position reset group behind or even abolish (*naplb: altogether. In addition, these must be treated as normal groups, not as assertion groups. What happens when they are repeated must be defined - or maybe they should not be allowed to repeat, because once again that might be an easy way to infinite loops. > I would like to hear others opinion though. So would I! Philip -- Philip Hazel -- ## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/pcre-dev
