Hi Tom,
> This claim is unsubstantiated. Even if it were, I fail to understand
> why it's necessary to expend any cycles whatsoever on this point.
> Who cares if we don't throw that error?
You're right that it isn't cheap as written. After a %, each candidate
position in the text gets its own recursive call, and each call repeats
the check. Checking once before the recursion would fix that.
But I agree with your main point. Even a cheap check buys nothing. A
bad pattern just returns false, and both reports were only about the
inconsistency. So I'm dropping the patch.
Thanks,
Shihao
