26 Jul
2010
26 Jul
'10
4:47 p.m.
Even though
the result is correct and makes much sense, would it
be possible to simply have the longest matches?
Sure.
As you can see in the implementation and in the comment of
#matchesIn:do: which is called by #matchesIn: the implementation tries
the parser at each input position. You can skip over matches by using
the following code instead: Maybe that should be added? Maybe somebody has a
better name :-)
What about matchesLongestIn: , or longestMatchesIn: ?
Alberto