Well, what this means is that a pattern like /foo(?:baz)++baz/ will never match. If you had a string like "foobazbazbaz" it would fail because (?:baz)++ will "gobble up" all of the "baz" in the string, and then refuse to give anything back. What it means by "does not disable backtracking" is that "foobazbazbaz foobazbazbaz" will *attempt* the /(?:baz)++/ twice, once after each "foo". Neither will match of course, and if the RE was _really_ smart it would know it could never match and wouldn't try at all, but it isn't. :-)
In reply to Re^3: Perl Complains of Nested Quantifiers
by demerphq
in thread Perl Complains of Nested Quantifiers
by sunmaz
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |