in reply to Probably silly regex question / not so silly regex question

I'm not very good at regex's theorbtwo, so instead of saying something vague and probably wrong, I'm just going to offer up real quick the regex I'd use (and hope it works):

/(.*)\.([^\.]+)/

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
RE: I'm not good at regex's
by Intrepid (Curate) on Aug 02, 2000 at 06:39 UTC

    gryng wrote:

    I'm not very good at regex's theorbtwo, so instead of saying
    something vague and probably wrong, I'm just going to offer up real
    quick the regex I'd use (and hope it works):

    /(.*)\.([^\.]+)/

    The funny thing is, I just learned this afternoon that you don't need to escape the dot in a character class: so the above is wrong. Assuming that you meant (obviously you did) what you typed. dot is just dot inside the brackets. (Camel 2cd Ed page 71, in the middle of the code in the page).

    Intrepid

      I sold my Camels to afford thinkgeek.com's perl book set, and then it went to back order :( . So I'm Camel-less and can't use your nifty reference :( :( . However I do believe you, but I think my code still works it's just I didn't need to escape when I did. Thank you though :) .... :( but I'm still sad about my missing Camels :(

      Gnight,
      Gryn

        I am sorry to hear about your Camel(s) too. That's quite dedicated, to
        sell your books to afford other books. And yes, I think you are
        right, your code still works. Perl can be very forgiving ..
        sometimes. Wish Life itself was always that way.