improve breaks in 8.5x11

1 files changed, 10 insertions, 11 deletions

diff --git a/lispref/searching.texi b/lispref/searching.texi
index 056e1bd51a5..10e8c672962 100644
--- a/lispref/searching.texi
+++ b/lispref/searching.texi
@@ -309,17 +309,16 @@ first tries to match all three @samp{a}s; but the rest of the pattern is
 The next alternative is for @samp{a*} to match only two @samp{a}s.  With
 this choice, the rest of the regexp matches successfully.
 
-@strong{Warning:} Nested repetition operators take a long time,
-or even forever, if they
-lead to ambiguous matching.  For example, trying to match the regular
-expression @samp{\(x+y*\)*a} against the string
-@samp{xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxz} could take hours before it
-ultimately fails.  Emacs must try each way of grouping the 35
-@samp{x}s before concluding that none of them can work.  Even worse,
-@samp{\(x*\)*} can match the null string in infinitely many ways, so
-it causes an infinite loop.  To avoid these problems, check nested
-repetitions carefully, to make sure that they do not cause combinatorial
-explosions in backtracking.
+@strong{Warning:} Nested repetition operators can run for an
+indefinitely long time, if they lead to ambiguous matching.  For
+example, trying to match the regular expression @samp{\(x+y*\)*a}
+against the string @samp{xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxz} could
+take hours before it ultimately fails.  Emacs must try each way of
+grouping the @samp{x}s before concluding that none of them can work.
+Even worse, @samp{\(x*\)*} can match the null string in infinitely
+many ways, so it causes an infinite loop.  To avoid these problems,
+check nested repetitions carefully, to make sure that they do not
+cause combinatorial explosions in backtracking.
 
 @item @samp{+}
 @cindex @samp{+} in regexp