Gary Herron wrote:
>I wrote:
>>Maybe just fixing the problem for .* will be sufficient.
Sorry, brain error on my part: I meant fixing it for .*?.
.* doesn't have a problem because the engine can chew up as many matches
for '.' as possible, try the rest of the pattern, and then back up
for '.'.
In other words: .* requires stack space proportional to the size of the
regex pattern, which is OK; .*?, as currently implemented, requires
stack space proportional to the size of *the string being matched*,
which is what causes the problem.
--amk (www.amk.ca)
MIRANDA: Your tale, sir, would cure deafness.
-- _The Tempest_, I, ii
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4