On Thu, 4 Jul 2002, Ashley Winters wrote:
: On Thursday 04 July 2002 10:47 am, Larry Wall wrote:
: > On Thu, 4 Jul 2002, Ashley Winters wrote:
: > So I'd guess that we just don't talk about :-1, but rather say that
: >
: > <*$min..$max>
: >
: > is naturally greedy, and as with any quantifier y
On Thursday 04 July 2002 11:07 am, Ashley Winters wrote:
>
> I would expect /a<*1..2>?/ to mean /[a<*1..2>]?/ just looking at it. How
> can ? ever mean non-greedy unless it follows a metachar <[*+?]>?
Perhaps I can respond to my own question. In /.+?/ . is an assertion, + is an
assertion, and ?
On Thursday 04 July 2002 10:47 am, Larry Wall wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Jul 2002, Ashley Winters wrote:
> So I'd guess that we just don't talk about :-1, but rather say that
>
> <*$min..$max>
>
> is naturally greedy, and as with any quantifier you write
>
> <*$min..$max>?
>
> to get minimal match
On Thu, 4 Jul 2002, Ashley Winters wrote:
: I was pondering how to implement the apocalypse 5 stuff (only pondering) and I
: was wondering if could be legal, indicating a greedy match.
:
: * =
: + =
: ? = <1,0>
: *? = <0,Inf>
: +? = <1,Inf>
: ?? = <0,1>
We could autoreverse, but it'd be a ba
I was pondering how to implement the apocalypse 5 stuff (only pondering) and I
was wondering if could be legal, indicating a greedy match.
* =
+ =
? = <1,0>
*? = <0,Inf>
+? = <1,Inf>
?? = <0,1>
Speaking of the range assertion, is there anything other than ? There
used to be discussion on th
