On Wed, 31 Jul 2019, Zoltán Herczeg wrote: > You have already convinced me to drop MOVE :)
> The question is whether we keep the other construct. Or "rematching" a > capturing block in an assertion like fashion would solve this problem better. I don't think that would solve the original problem for which *napla was invented. And also, I'm not sure that matching a captured block would be easy in the interpreter. I have come round in a full circle on this one. I quite liked the idea of *MOVE until I spotted the fatal flaw :-) and I was wondering about whether treating *napla blocks as assertions was correct. However, I realized that not treating them as assertions would also lead to looping issues. PCRE2 does allow assertions to be quantified (because Perl does), but it only ever obeys an assertion 0 or 1 times. So my current feeling is to leave *napla and *naplb as they are - but I realize this might be difficult for JIT. They are currently documented as not supported by JIT, so if you don't want to support these non-Perl things, I won't complain. :-) Philip -- Philip Hazel -- ## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/pcre-dev
