Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from September 2011
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 9:41 AM, Father Chrysostomos via RT < perlbug-followup@perl.org> wrote: > On Sun Sep 18 13:33:28 2011, sprout wrote: > > On Mon Sep 12 06:24:25 2011, ph10@hermes.cam.ac.uk wrote: > > > another oddity of (*THEN). > > > > > > Pattern: /a+?(*THEN)c/ > > > Subject: aaac > > > Result: Perl 5.012003 matches "aaac" > > > > That’s strange. In 5.14 it doesn’t match. I don’t know which is worse. > According to the 5.14.1 docs, it shouldn't match. Note that if [the (*PRUNE)] operator is used and NOT inside of an alternation then it acts exactly like the (*PRUNE) operator. Consider the pattern A (*PRUNE) B, where A and B are complex patterns. Until the (*PRUNE) verb is reached, A may backtrack as necessary to match. Once it is reached, matching continues in B, which may also backtrack as necessary; however, should B not match, then no further backtracking will take place, and the pattern will fail outright at the current starting position. The change occurred with this commit: The following should match according to the docs: /a+(*THEN)c/ /a+?(?=c)(*THEN)c/Thread Previous | Thread Next