| To: | yyyy@xxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: RE-ASSOC: a question about the associativity of RE concatenation |
| From: | Paul Eggert <yyyyyy@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 5 Apr 2002 16:28:21 -0800 (PST) |
| Cc: | yyyyyyyyyyyyyy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, yyyyy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, yyyyy@xxxxxxxxxx |
| References: | <200204040900.g34907s13879@sic.twinsun.com> <55CB8F56-48DD-11D6-A96D-0030657603C6@us.ibm.com> <20020405230100.GA6667@rap.rap.dk> <200204052352.PAA17315@morrowfield.home> |
> Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 15:52:02 -0800 (PST) > From: Tom Lord <yyyy@xxxxxxx> > > [(1b)] means that (A).* will produce a different result > for some values of A even when the length of the overall match > does not change. Can you please give an example of what you mean by this? The other points in your message are all well taken, but unfortunately I don't understand this one. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | RE: RE-ASSOC: a question about the associativity of RE concatenation, Donn Terry |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: RE-ASSOC: a question about the associativity of RE concatenation, Tom Lord |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: RE-ASSOC: a question about the associativity of RE concatenation, Tom Lord |
| Next by Thread: | Re: RE-ASSOC: a question about the associativity of RE concatenation, Tom Lord |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [All Lists] |