Niu Danny wrote, on 12 Mar 2025:
> 
> > I was thinking about something like this:
> > 
> > The precedence of quantifiers are as follow (from highest to lowest):
> > 
> > 1. The length of any minimal quantifier -modified subexpression
> >    shall be such that they match the shortest substring of the
> >    subject string, in descending priority from left to right.
> > 
> > 2. Consistent with rule 1, the length of the overall match shall 
> >    be the longest possible.
> > 
> > 3. The length of any greedy quantifier -modified subexpression
> >    shall be such that they match the longest substring of the
> >    subject string, in descending priority from left to right.

That seems like a sound idea for some clarifying text, but it does not
use the right terminology, it needs to apply to all repetitions not
just those for subexpressions, and it needs an addition to make the
pathological cases unspecified.

Here's my attempt:

If an ERE contains repetitions with and without the repetition
modifier '?', the precedence between the repetitions shall be:

1. Each leftmost shortest match shall match the leftmost shortest 
sequence in the string, in descending priority from left to right.

2. Consistent with rule 1, the length matched by the entire regular
expression shall be the leftmost longest.

3. Consistent with rules 1 and 2, each leftmost longest match shall
match the leftmost longest sequence in the string, in descending
priority from left to right.

4. If an attempt is made to match the same sequence of the string
using repetitions both with and without the repetition modifier '?',
the behavior is unspecified. For example, the ERE ([0-9]+)+? has
unspecified behavior.

-- 
Geoff Clare <[email protected]>
The Open Group, Apex Plaza, Forbury Road, Reading, RG1 1AX, England

  • I still find the res... Niu Danny via austin-group-l at The Open Group
    • Re: I still fin... Niu Danny via austin-group-l at The Open Group
      • Re: I still... Geoff Clare via austin-group-l at The Open Group
        • Re: I s... Niu Danny via austin-group-l at The Open Group
    • Re: I still fin... Geoff Clare via austin-group-l at The Open Group
      • Re: I still... Niu Danny via austin-group-l at The Open Group
        • Re: I s... Geoff Clare via austin-group-l at The Open Group
          • Re:... Niu Danny via austin-group-l at The Open Group
            • ... Steffen Nurpmeso via austin-group-l at The Open Group
            • ... Geoff Clare via austin-group-l at The Open Group
              • ... Niu Danny via austin-group-l at The Open Group
                • ... Niu Danny via austin-group-l at The Open Group
                • ... Geoff Clare via austin-group-l at The Open Group

Reply via email to