On Thu, 14 Dec 2000, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 14, 2000 at 04:19:15PM -0700, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> > Deven T. Corzine writes:
> > > I haven't even SEEN an example where the current behavior is actually
> > > preferable than my proposed behavior, have you? (And I'd expect at least a
> > > FEW, though I suspect there are probably more counterexamples.)
> >
> > I think the biggest problem with your idea is that it requires the
> > engine to keep looking even after it finds a match, to see if there's
> > another shorter match. This would make *every* match much much
> > slower, potentially heatdeathoftheuniverse slower.
I suppose if my proposal is useful, but still considered a "special-case",
having it as an option might be an approach to take, if it's worth having
as an alternative.
> Couldn't the be an option (a modifier) to do this? Then if someone
> asks to wait until all the electrons spin down, so be it...
> > I like the current semantics because it's very easy to visualize the
> > engine acting on your instructions and stopping as soon as it finds a
> > match. I am a programmer, and I prefer programs to descriptions.
The functioning of the NFA is a means to an end. The end is the high-level
concept of "pattern matching", for which the semantics are perhaps a little
different. (Or perhaps not; we're not in agreement on that point.)
Deven
