On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 03:49:42PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 04:02:19PM -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
: : I agree. One thought I had was that perhaps non-greedy matching
: : could also terminate the token prefix.
:
: Well, that's more or less arguing it the other way.
On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 04:02:19PM -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
: I agree. One thought I had was that perhaps non-greedy matching
: could also terminate the token prefix.
Well, that's more or less arguing it the other way. It kind of assumes
your fooba-ish arguments are smart enough to test
On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 12:37:37PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 01:25:12PM -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> : On a somewhat similar question, what happens with a pattern
> : such as
> :
> : "foobar" ~~ / foo.+? | fooba /
> :
> : The LHS initially matches "foob", but wi
On Thu, 2007-09-06 at 12:37 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> Yow. ICATBW.
The what now?
-'f
On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 01:25:12PM -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
: > Were we using the procedural conjunction:
: >
: > "foobar" ~~ / <[a..z]>+ && [ ... ] /;
: >
: > I would guess that the LHS matches as much as it can ("foobar"), then
: > the RHS matches "foo" [...and then backtracks the L
compiler and/or the run-time system to decide
which parts to evaluate first, and it is erroneous to assume
either order happens consistently. The && form guarantees
left-to-right order, and backtracking makes the right argument
vary faster than the left.
So, to answe
Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> How do C<&> and C<&&> differ with respect to backtracking? For instance,
>
> "foobar" ~~ / <[a..z]>+ & [ ... ] /;
>
> Both sides of the C<&> happen in parallel, so I would guess that they
> both match "foo" then stop. Please correct me if that's wrong.
As written,
How do C<&> and C<&&> differ with respect to backtracking? For instance,
"foobar" ~~ / <[a..z]>+ & [ ... ] /;
Both sides of the C<&> happen in parallel, so I would guess that they
both match "foo" then stop. Please correct me if that's wrong.
Were we using the procedural conjunction:
"
