• From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>
• To: Dan Shelton <dan.f.shelton@g...>
• Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2012 22:46:41 +0100

On 02/07/2012 22:24, Dan Shelton wrote:
> The +? after the pattern makes sure the previous expression is not
> greedy. regex(5) should explain. So it won't swallow the whole
> document, it'll travel along the characters until it finds the first
> -->

There is no ? after the + in the code you quoted.

(<!--.+-->)+?| # xml comments
^


the outer group has a +? but that doesn't help and as I said originally
the regexp would be wrong even if it had <!--.+?--> as it doesn't
enforce the restriction that comments may contain - but not --.


David

-- 
google plus: https:/profiles.google.com/d.p.carlisle

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: newline/form feed valid as attribute value?
    • From: Liam R E Quin <liam@w...>

• References:
  • newline/form feed valid as attribute value?
    • From: Dan Shelton <dan.f.shelton@g...>
  • Re: newline/form feed valid as attribute value?
    • From: Michael Kay <mike@s...>
  • Re: newline/form feed valid as attribute value?
    • From: Dan Shelton <dan.f.shelton@g...>
  • Re: newline/form feed valid as attribute value?
    • From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>
  • Re: newline/form feed valid as attribute value?
    • From: Mike Sokolov <sokolov@i...>
  • Re: newline/form feed valid as attribute value?
    • From: Dan Shelton <dan.f.shelton@g...>