It would be nice to support both greedy and lazy forms of {m,n} quantifiers, as well as a lazy version of '?'. * already has a direct lazy version as -, but depending on how this resolves, it might be nice to support *? as well for consistency. As the lazy form of a+ is aa-, necessitating repeating the token, a lazy form of + would be helpful as well, especially for group quantifiers (issue #6).
It would also be awesome to support possessive quantifiers, essentially a greedy quantifier that never backtracks or gives up a match. Not all regex flavors support this, but I think it should be fairly easy to implement.
It would be nice to support both greedy and lazy forms of
{m,n}quantifiers, as well as a lazy version of '?'.*already has a direct lazy version as-, but depending on how this resolves, it might be nice to support*?as well for consistency. As the lazy form ofa+isaa-, necessitating repeating the token, a lazy form of+would be helpful as well, especially for group quantifiers (issue #6).It would also be awesome to support possessive quantifiers, essentially a greedy quantifier that never backtracks or gives up a match. Not all regex flavors support this, but I think it should be fairly easy to implement.