- From: Tobias Reif <tobiasreif@pinkjuice.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 10:13:58 +0200
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
- CC: Ashok Malhotra <ashokma@microsoft.com>
Ashok Malhotra wrote:
> Yes, but the spec says that if reluctant quantifiers are used, i.e.
> those with ?, then the regex "matches the shortest possible substring
> consistent with the match as a whole succeeding."
This doesn't seem to apply to the regex in the example in the spec,
namely ".?".
It's up to you and I don't want to annoy you, but there still might be
some unclear areas:
http://www.w3.org/TR/xquery-operators/#regex-syntax
"Reluctant quantifiers are supported. Specifically:
* X?? matches X, once or not at all
* X*? matches X, zero or more times
* X+? matches X, one or more times"
So the example
fn:tokenize("abba", ".?") returns ("a", "b", "b", "a")
should be changed to
fn:tokenize("abba", ".??") returns ("a", "b", "b", "a")
?
What does tokenize return with ".?" then? The empty sequence or a
sequence of zero-length strings? And with "."?
I'd still add
fn:tokenize("abba", "") returns ("a", "b", "b", "a")
since it's most clear. I can't see why someone would write something
other than "" or ".{0}" to match the empty string.
Tobi
--
http://www.pinkjuice.com/
Received on Tuesday, 19 August 2003 04:15:35 UTC