On Mon Jun 18 10:55:15 2012, demerphq wrote: > On 18 June 2012 19:53, yves orton via RT <perlbug-followup@perl.org> wrote: > > Hrm, this is an unfortunate side effect of how the implementation of > > C< (?|..) > and (?-1) work together. �The \G is actually irrelevant as > > without it the pattern matches at a different place and does not use (? > > -1) to match. > > > > I had hoped that named captures would solve this problem, but they suffer > > from the same thing. I will investigate further. > > I also noticed a weird parse bug if you write the original pattern > with (?&1) which needs to be fixed as well. You mean bug #101666? -- Father Chrysostomos --- via perlbug: queue: perl5 status: open https://rt.perl.org:443/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=112894Thread Previous | Thread Next