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
