Welcome to ShenZhenJia Knowledge Sharing Community for programmer and developer-Open, Learning and Share
menu search
person
Welcome To Ask or Share your Answers For Others

Categories

Is it possible to emulate possessive quantifiers (.NET doesn’t support it) using atomic grouping (or in other way)?

Note. I found that (x+x+)++y can be replaced with (?>(x+x+)+)y, but this is just an example and I don’t know whether always {something}@+ equals to (?>{something}@) (where @ is a quantifier).

See Question&Answers more detail:os

与恶龙缠斗过久,自身亦成为恶龙;凝视深渊过久,深渊将回以凝视…
thumb_up_alt 0 like thumb_down_alt 0 dislike
658 views
Welcome To Ask or Share your Answers For Others

1 Answer

Yup. May I quote the master himself, Jeffrey Friedl, from page 142 of his classic Mastering Regular Expressions (3rd Edition):

"In one sense, possessive quantifiers are just syntactic sugar, as they can be mimicked with atomic grouping. Something like .++ has exactly the same result as (?>.+), although a smart implementation can optimize possessive quantifiers more than atomic grouping."


与恶龙缠斗过久,自身亦成为恶龙;凝视深渊过久,深渊将回以凝视…
thumb_up_alt 0 like thumb_down_alt 0 dislike
Welcome to ShenZhenJia Knowledge Sharing Community for programmer and developer-Open, Learning and Share
...