Re: Re: Re: Regular Expression Builder

One quibble is that because \d is a subset of \w then a string such as "abc123def" will get \w{9} in your version.

Yup. But personally I consider that a feature not a bug. :-) After all ldkjdlkjf2098kklls probably isnt [[:alpha:]]+\d+[[:alpha:]]+

But we are both in agreement that there isnt a good way to do this, although as we both have shown there are a variety of bad ways to do it... BTW, is the . really necessary? I dont think it is as the s/// will just skip the char if it doesnt match.

Oh and I considered using something like you post here, but I fgured that considering I tend not to use the POSIX char classes that much probably others wouldnt either.

:-)

Yves / DeMerphq
---
Software Engineering is Programming when you can't. -- E. W. Dijkstra (RIP)

Comment on Re: Re: Re: Regular Expression Builder Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Regular Expression Builder by Anonymous Monk on Aug 30, 2002 at 17:29 UTC
But we are both in agreement that there isnt a good way to do this Agreed. Anything that tries to generalize beyond `"\Q$string\E"` requires a variety of assumptions. BTW, is the . really necessary? I dont think it is as the s/// will just skip the char if it doesnt match. Just trying to be careful :-) In case I neglected something with those classes, and that something also required escaping, then just leaving it in the string wouldn't result in a valid re. (I don't tend to use POSIX char classes either, so I wasn't sure exactly how inclusive I was being).	[reply] [d/l]
Re(4): Regular Expression Builder by Dog and Pony (Priest) on Sep 02, 2002 at 20:11 UTC
After all ldkjdlkjf2098kklls probably isnt `[[:alpha:]]+\d+[[:alpha:]]+` I did play around once with a small script that did these things, when I was bored, and no, it probably isn't. But what I did was take several strings and tried to derive a common expression out of them - first looking for similarities, like a sequence of numbers in the middle, or whitespace at the end, or whatever, and then built sub-regexes from the parts. I think starting with splitting on non-words and such gave so-so results for things like email addresses.. Of course, I never really got any really usable results, but it was a fun exercise. :) What I wanted to say was that do decide which it should be you need a decent sample of several strings that should all match. Then it is sometimes possible to get something to build upon. Maybe. :) You have moved into a dark place. It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.	[reply] [d/l]