Re: Re: more date conversion happiness, part 3

Thanks. Funny you mention the anchors...the first couple versions of the script had all the anchors in place, but I got several replies that said I didn't need them, or should take them out, so I did. In the case of this script (as far as the input it was written to handle), they appear to work either way, but indeed with different input they might not.

Comment on Re: Re: more date conversion happiness, part 3

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Re: more date conversion happiness, part 3 by ysth (Canon) on Jan 12, 2004 at 03:45 UTC
It really depends on whether your task is to take specified input and validate and parse it, or look for any date-like thing in the input. Without the anchors, `m:\d{2}/\d{2}/\d{2}:` will quite happily match the "04/08/84" in "123/3/104/08/840/2".	[reply] [d/l]
Re: Re: Re: Re: more date conversion happiness, part 3 by ctp (Beadle) on Jan 12, 2004 at 03:49 UTC
Indeed...I did some experimenting with that. This particular assignment had a very specific input it had to deal with. But I'm working on something right now that will use the anchors for exactly what you mentioned. Thanks!	[reply]