Patrick~ On 11/8/05, Patrick R. Michaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 12:57:18PM +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > "Patrick R. Michaud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > :And we also get \d:0123 as a cheap way of saying \d<?null>0123. > > > > I think the ':' changes the meaning of the rule, so you still need > > '\d<?null>0123' (or preferably something shorter) for the uncut semantic. > > Not really; the ':' (as 'cut') simply means to not retry the > preceding atom, and in this case since the previous atom has > no backtracking associated with it already (a '\d' matches a single > digit or fails), so the ':' is effectively a no-op. In fact, > in PGE '\d' and '\d:' generate exactly the same code.
While that is true for the rule /\d:0123/ it is not for /.*\d:0123/, as preceding backtracking options may need to be explored. If I understand this correctly.... Matt -- "Computer Science is merely the post-Turing Decline of Formal Systems Theory." -Stan Kelly-Bootle, The Devil's DP Dictionary
