Re: [basex-talk] Different interpretation of regex in eXist, Saxon and BaseX

Bridger Dyson-Smith wrote: > wow, that is a pretty nice regex :). Indeed, I found that, too! :-) > coverage wrong, isn't the '?' a reluctant quantifier - given two choices > it will always match the shorter choice? Or does the hash/octothorp give > extra significance to the '?' quantifier? I

Re: [basex-talk] Different interpretation of regex in eXist, Saxon and BaseX

On Tue, 2018-08-07 at 21:31 -0400, Bridger Dyson-Smith wrote: > isn't the '?' a reluctant quantifier - given two > choices it > will always match the shorter choice? b? matches zero or one "b". b* matches zero or more "b" using the longest match possible b+ matches one or more "b" using the

Re: [basex-talk] Different interpretation of regex in eXist, Saxon and BaseX

Hi Andreas - wow, that is a pretty nice regex :). I'm not nearly caffeinated enough right now to pick it apart, so I'm only able to ask a question - not provide any answers or help. Unless I'm reading the spec and Walmsley's coverage wrong, isn't the '?' a reluctant quantifier - given two choices

[basex-talk] Different interpretation of regex in eXist, Saxon and BaseX

Hi [rfc3986](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#appendix-B) defines a nice regular expression, which groups any URI, including URN, by URI component. Interesting about this regex is the use of the '?' quantifier which makes every preceding group/component optional, thus matching either an URI

Re: [basex-talk] CSV underscore

Hi Giuseppe, I hope that the conversion rules in our documentation give you more insight what’s happening here [1]. Did you try the different alternatives? Cheers, Christian [1] http://docs.basex.org/wiki/CSV_Module Giuseppe Celano schrieb am Di., 7. Aug. 2018, 16:51: > I am importing a