in reply to Re: Simple regex question. Grouping with a negative lookahead assertion.
in thread Simple regex question. Grouping with a negative lookahead assertion.

That's very close. I was also trying to prevent any characters that were not in the following character class, [acgt], from being included in the match.

Thanks for the quick response.
  • Comment on Re^2: Simple regex question. Grouping with a negative lookahead assertion.
  • Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Simple regex question. Grouping with a negative lookahead assertion.
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Jul 14, 2013 at 06:36 UTC
    I was also trying to prevent any characters that were not in the following character class, [acgt], from being included in the match.

    Is that a possibility? If so, then substitute that for . in my regex. (S'not rocket science.)

    But, if it is a possibility, then you could (should) have included a non-acgt character in your example.

    And if the example you provided is realistic, then using [acgt] is redundant, because your example consists entirely of those characters.

    With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
    Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
    "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
    In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
[reply]
[d/l]
[select]
Re^3: Simple regex question. Grouping with a negative lookahead assertion.
by Anonymous Monk on Jul 14, 2013 at 01:56 UTC
    I just modified and tested the code.

    The minor modification will work. I should have seen the necessary addition of the non-greedy mode quantifier.

    Thanks again.
[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom