On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 06:01:19PM -0700,
> So let's stay greedy; thanks for setting me straight!
No problem ;-) And let's also remember that a necessary corollary
here is that the regexp we end up choosing needs to support both
greedy and non-greedy matching.
why? I thought we only needed that if :matches was non-greedy.
I wouldn't mind having non-greedy regexps, but they're not in POSIX.2
which the regex draft refers to.
Jutta's argument, which I believe is valid, is that expectations can only
be met by having both types available.
Most cases of it can also be met with character classes.
That's why I said "let's stay greedy" in the piece you quote above --
I realized that I wanted to solve problems with non-greed that can
be solved with regexes.