Re: [pcre-dev] Partial match at end of subject
On 2019-07-22 16:32, ph10 wrote: The characteristic of these is that the pattern can match an empty string. I have now added this condition (which was easily done with no repeated test) and those patterns now give partial matches. It's excellent!! Now it can be useful to try putting into words, what exactly in applying to multisegment matching means "local no match" and what means "partial match". -- ## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/pcre-dev
Re: [pcre-dev] Partial match at end of subject
On Sun, 21 Jul 2019, ND via Pcre-dev wrote: > /(?![ab]).*/ > ab\=ph > 0: > > /c*+/ > ab\=ph,offset=2 > 0: The characteristic of these is that the pattern can match an empty string. I have now added this condition (which was easily done with no repeated test) and those patterns now give partial matches. Philip -- Philip Hazel -- ## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/pcre-dev
[pcre-dev] [Bug 2415] incorrect use of "an" in manual
https://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2415 Philip Hazel changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #1 from Philip Hazel --- Thank you for noticing those. Although PCRE1 is pretty well frozen now, there will probably be another release (the last?) eventually, and these are small typos fixes, so I have applied them. I have also fixed several that I found in PCRE2. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. -- ## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/pcre-dev
Re: [pcre-dev] Partial match at end of subject
On Sun, 21 Jul 2019, ND via Pcre-dev wrote: > New algorithm still have another parts of discussed oversight. For example it > returns full match instead of partial in following cases: > > /(?![ab]).*/ > ab\=ph > 0: > > /c*+/ > ab\=ph,offset=2 > 0: The answer to that may lie in thinking about zero repeat items. > Alternative suggestion don't have this troubles. It simplify calculations that > main application must do after matching of every segment. It also have more > common and simple (for user understanding) algorithm and can have simpler > docs. But it is a big incompatible change and nobody else has brought up any of these points in the last 10 years. > >ND quoted /(*COMMIT)(*F)/ as a > >simple example. Is (*COMMIT) the only way this might happen? > > Not only. It may also happen with anchored patterns. The user can find out if a pattern is anchored. If it is, there is no point continuing with another segment after no match on the first segment. Philip -- Philip Hazel -- ## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/pcre-dev
