regex confusion

[Diez B. Roggisch]

> Hmm. But when thats true, what does ".??" then mean - the first ? is not
> greedy, so it is  nothing matched at all. The same is true for ".*?", and
> ".+?" is then equal to "." So what makes this useful? The regex in
> question definitely didn't work with it.

Ok - I just found out - it makes sense when taking into account what follows
in the regex, as that will be matched earlier. Neat - didn't know that such
things existed.

Diez