Re: Re: "Not containing something" in substitution

Am I wrong in thinking that this will only handle two levels of nesting?

Examine what is said, not who speaks.

"Efficiency is intelligent laziness." -David Dunham
"When I'm working on a problem, I never think about beauty. I think only how to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong." -Richard Buckminster Fuller
If I understand your problem, I can solve it! Of course, the same can be said for you.

Comment on Re: Re: "Not containing something" in substitution

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: "Not containing something" in substitution by Aristotle (Chancellor) on Aug 28, 2003 at 21:33 UTC
Yes. The `(??{ })` construct is evaluated at match time if and only when the engine reaches that point. Makeshifts last the longest.	[reply]
Re: Re^3: "Not containing something" in substitution by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Aug 28, 2003 at 22:00 UTC
Right. I was thinking of the `(?>..)` example that only matches upto two deep. `m{ \( ( [^()]+ # x+ \| \( [^()]* \) )+ \) }x` [download] Examine what is said, not who speaks. "Efficiency is intelligent laziness." -David Dunham "When I'm working on a problem, I never think about beauty. I think only how to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong." -Richard Buckminster Fuller If I understand your problem, I can solve it! Of course, the same can be said for you.	[reply] [d/l] [select]