Is it possible to emulate possessive quantifiers (.NET doesn’t support it) using atomic grouping (or in other way)?
Note. I found that (x+x+)++y
can be replaced with (?>(x+x+)+)y
, but this is just an example and I don’t know whether always {something}@+
equals to (?>{something}@)
(where @
is a quantifier).
Yup. May I quote the master himself, Jeffrey Friedl, from page 142 of his classic Mastering Regular Expressions (3rd Edition):
"In one sense, possessive quantifiers are just syntactic sugar, as they can be mimicked with atomic grouping. Something like
.++
has exactly the same result as(?>.+)
, although a smart implementation can optimize possessive quantifiers more than atomic grouping."