Re: Permit (greedy) conflicting wildcards

Previously sent using wrong account!!!

Original Message From: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@acm...>
>
> On 15 Mar 2007, at 08:22 , Pete Cordell wrote:
> ...
> Requiring a greedy match would be one way to resolve
> particle competition, agreed, although surely there
> will be situations in which some schema authors want
> a non-greedy match.

Do you have any use-cases where non-greedy matches would be helpful?

My blissfully simplistic view of wildcards is that they permit two main
use-cases: skipping over forward compatible material that I can ignore, and
capturing input from an external, specific vocabulary such as XHTML.

In the first case I don't think it matters which wildcard [expletive deleted] up the
input.  It's just getting it out the way!

In the second case, the wildcard is much more specific, and so the scope for
conflicts is much reduced.

> The difficulty is that finite state
> automata and regular expressions with greedy
> matching seem not to behave the same way FSAs and
> regexes without greedy matching behave.

I'm afraid I'm not smart enough to do the FSA thing!!!  Possibly for your
entertainment, I'll capture how I would do it in another thread!

Thanks for the comments,

Pete.
--
=============================================
Pete Cordell
Tech-Know-Ware Ltd
for XML to C++ data binding visit
http://www.tech-know-ware.com/lmx/
http://www.codalogic.com/lmx/
=============================================