Am 28.04.2010 18:08, schrieb cognominal:
On Apr 28, 2:05 pm, mor...@faui2k3.org (Moritz Lenz) wrote:
Am 27.04.2010 06:31, schrieb Stéphane Payrard:
There's also another problem with your approach: If you have
?
in your regex, and it matches the empty string, it is still a successful
match -
On Apr 28, 2:05 pm, mor...@faui2k3.org (Moritz Lenz) wrote:
> Am 27.04.2010 06:31, schrieb Stéphane Payrard:
>
> > When doing an analyse of a sample parse tree, I note that it is
> > cluttered by the reduction of optional subrules
> > to generate a zero length parse subtree. That is, rules with a
Moritz Lenz wrote:
Am 27.04.2010 06:31, schrieb Stéphane Payrard:
When doing an analyse of a sample parse tree, I note that it is
cluttered by the reduction of optional subrules
to generate a zero length parse subtree. That is, rules with a '?'
quantifier matching zero time.
Currently the ? q
Am 27.04.2010 06:31, schrieb Stéphane Payrard:
When doing an analyse of a sample parse tree, I note that it is
cluttered by the reduction of optional subrules
to generate a zero length parse subtree. That is, rules with a '?'
quantifier matching zero time.
Suppressing such matching rules from th
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 06:31:01AM +0200, Stéphane Payrard wrote:
> When doing an analyse of a sample parse tree, I note that it is
> cluttered by the reduction of optional subrules
> to generate a zero length parse subtree. That is, rules with a '?'
> quantifier matching zero time.
> Suppressing
When doing an analyse of a sample parse tree, I note that it is
cluttered by the reduction of optional subrules
to generate a zero length parse subtree. That is, rules with a '?'
quantifier matching zero time.
Suppressing such matching rules from the parse tree would make it
easier to read.
Additi
