On 2019-06-19 20:00, Zoltán Herczeg wrote:
Assertions are like "if" statements in structured languages. A condition
part of an "if" is never retried.
(?=x|y) looks much more ergonomical than (?:(?=x)|(?=y))
--
## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/pcre-dev
> But why assertions are atomic? I guess answer is: "Because it does in
> Perl". But why?
Assertions are like "if" statements in structured languages. A condition part
of an "if" is never retried.
Regards,
Zoltan
--
## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/pcre-dev
Good day!
In ASSERTIONS chapter I can't find words that assertions are atomic. This
information can be seen much far for this chapter in backtracking control
verbs part.
It can be important IMHO to put this info in ASSERTIONS chapter.
But why assertions are atomic? I guess answer is:
On 2019-06-19 17:15, ph10 wrote:
At present, lookarounds do not take part in minimum length calculations,
I see lookarounds takes part: first and last code units are searched in
lookarounds too.
So this is another reason in opposition to my poroposal.
So I suggest to close this thread.
On Wed, 19 Jun 2019, ND via Pcre-dev wrote:
> (*ACCEPT) can't leave lookaround borders. So ACCEPT's that are inside
> lookarounds can't influence minimum length claculation, if lookaround entrails
> are not participate in this calculation (is this true?).
>
> Thus more preferable may be to turn
On Mon, 17 Jun 2019, ND via Pcre-dev wrote:
> PCRE2 version 10.33 2019-04-16
> /(?:a|ab){1}+c/
> abc
> 0: abc
>
> No match expected, but pattern matched.
You are getting very good at finding PCRE2 bugs. :-) The quantifier {1}
was just being ignored, but that is wrong when it is {1}+ applied to
