Re: Why would one want in a regex a class with only a single entry?

I already gave an answer in that thread in Re: The cost of unchecked best practices. It is to more safely deal with changing requirements when using a regex as a parsing tool.

My criteria for good software:

Does it work?
Can someone else come in, make a change, and be reasonably certain no bugs were introduced?

Comment on Re: Why would one want in a regex a class with only a single entry?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Why would one want in a regex a class with only a single entry? by ack (Deacon) on Mar 26, 2008 at 04:05 UTC
Thanks, dragonchild. When I saw your response, I got sidetracked thinking about the single entry class. I just went back and looked much more closely at your response and realized that I missed that point. I have not ever tackled what, for me, would be a formidable task of constructing a parsing tool. I tend to use regex's for much simpler constructs. My question was not meant to disrespect your information in that thread; your post had so much depth and good info. UPDATE: Sorry, I just re-read my comment here and realize that I may have inadvertantly mis-communicated. The response I was referring to in the first sentence was the response that dragonchild had posted in the other thread...not this thread. My comment in this reply would seem coarse if it were referring to the response to this thread. I absolutely would never want to respond so poorly. ack Albuquerque, NM	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^2: Why would one want in a regex a class with only a single entry?
by ack (Deacon) on Mar 26, 2008 at 04:05 UTC

Thanks, dragonchild. When I saw your response, I got sidetracked thinking about the single entry class.

I just went back and looked much more closely at your response and realized that I missed that point.

I have not ever tackled what, for me, would be a formidable task of constructing a parsing tool. I tend to use regex's for much simpler constructs.

My question was not meant to disrespect your information in that thread; your post had so much depth and good info.

UPDATE: Sorry, I just re-read my comment here and realize that I may have inadvertantly mis-communicated. The response I was referring to in the first sentence was the response that dragonchild had posted in the other thread...not this thread. My comment in this reply would seem coarse if it were referring to the response to this thread. I absolutely would never want to respond so poorly.

ack Albuquerque, NM

[reply]