On 11/26/2013 2:05 PM, Alex Shinn wrote:
> IMHO * and + are very common patterns which deserve a
> short name, even if it takes new users slightly longer to learn
> them.

Agreed. After pushing for long names for everything, I now question the
merits of having two names for any operator.

> In your proposal you introduce "lazy" without defining it -
> I'm guessing you mean what is already called "non-greedy".

Yes. Lazy and non-greedy are the same thing. Sorry. My confusion.