Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm not sure I believe the new coding for %-matching at all, and I
> certainly don't like the 100% lack of comments explaining why the
> different cases are necessary and just how they differ. In particular,
> once we've advanced more than one character, why does it still matter
> what was immediately after the %?
>
>
>
I don't understand the question. The % processing looks for a place that
matches what is immediately after the % and then tries to match the
remainder using a recursive call - so it never actually does matter. I
haven't actually changed the fundamental logic AFAIK, I have just
rearranged and optimised it some.
I admit that it takes some pondering to understand - I certainly intend
to adjust the comments once we are satisfied the code is right. It's
going to be next week now before I finish this up :-(
cheers
andrew