both of these approaches use NFAs under the hood, which means O(m * n) matching. our approach is fundamentally different: we encode lookaround information directly in the automaton via derivatives, which gives us O(n) matching with a small constant. the trade-off is that we restrict lookarounds to a normalized form (?<=R1)R2(?=R3) where R1/R2/R3 themselves don’t contain lookarounds. the oracle-based approaches support more general nesting, but pay for it in the matching loop. one open question i have is how they handle memory for the oracle table - if you read a gigabyte of text, do you keep a gigabyte-sized table in memory for each lookaround in the pattern?
Фото: Gleb Garanich / Reuters
。关于这个话题，Line官方版本下载提供了深入分析
Последние новости
07:30, 28 февраля 2026ЭкономикаЭксклюзив
For multiple readers