syntax: fix literal extraction for 'ab??'#863
Merged
Merged
Conversation
Previously, 'ab??' returned [Complete(ab), Complete(a)], but the order matters here because of greediness. The correct result is [Complete(a), Complete(ab)]. Instead of trying to actually fix literal extraction (which is a mess), we just rewrite 'ab?' (and 'ab??') as 'ab*'. 'ab*' still produces literals in the incorrect order, i.e., [Cut(ab), Complete(a)], but since one is cut we are guaranteed that the regex engine will be called to confirm the match. In so doing, it will correctly report 'a' as a match for 'ab??' in 'ab'. Fixes #862
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Previously, 'ab??' returned [Complete(ab), Complete(a)], but the order
matters here because of greediness. The correct result is [Complete(a),
Complete(ab)].
Instead of trying to actually fix literal extraction (which is a mess),
we just rewrite 'ab?' (and 'ab??') as 'ab*'. 'ab*' still produces
literals in the incorrect order, i.e., [Cut(ab), Complete(a)], but since
one is cut we are guaranteed that the regex engine will be called to
confirm the match. In so doing, it will correctly report 'a' as a match
for 'ab??' in 'ab'.
Fixes #862