On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 7:34 PM, jerry gay <jerry....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>  If that's now the case, that's unfortunately confusing.  In other
>> contexts, "eagerness" is "leftmost" ("eager" for matching to start, if
>> you like), which is orthogonal to "greed":

Indeed, in the context of regular expressions this definition is
well-established, used in Friedl's book (widely considered definitive)
among other places.

> i agree the wording isn't clear here, but it is consistent with the
> current design language.

Consistent how?  In that "eager" isn't used anywhere else yet, or is
this use of "eager" already established in the spec?

> i don't want to define something with a negative, so i purposefully did not 
> use
>  "non-greedy".

Well, you're not defining. You're contrasting with an established
definition.  If you have what is essentially a Boolean-valued
attribute of behavior, surely it makes sense to use positive and
negative versions of a single adjective rather than two distinct ones
- especially two which aren't even antonyms in English.

If you must use a non-derived(*) form, why not choose something that
means "non-greedy" in English?  Maybe "generous"?

(*) Note casual use of "non-" in actual dialogue :)

Mark J. Reed <markjr...@gmail.com>

Reply via email to