On Jun 25, 9:21 pm, Edi Weitz e...@agharta.de wrote:
The question is - what do you want to achieve with this regular expression? Can't you write it in a simpler way?
Isn't this pattern pretty useful in general:
A@B
where A and B are word characters and @ is a specific non-word character?
How else could we specify it?
[a-zA-Z0-9] doesn't seem acceptable to me since it relies on the latin alphabet...
Leslie
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 15:10, Leslie P. Polzersky@viridian-project.de wrote:
On Jun 25, 9:21 pm, Edi Weitz e...@agharta.de wrote:
The question is - what do you want to achieve with this regular expression? Can't you write it in a simpler way?
Isn't this pattern pretty useful in general:
A@B
where A and B are word characters and @ is a specific non-word character?
Sure, but the original bug report was about this:
(\w+)*\@\w+
I can't make any sense of this regular expression, but maybe it is because I am lacking some skills. Maybe Wu can explain what he wants to achive with it?
-Hans
Very sorry, it is a typo, :(
It should be:
(cl-ppcre:scan (cl-ppcre:create-scanner "(_\w+)*\@\w+") "______________________________________" :start 0)
but other examples indicate the accurate idea.
On 6/26/09, Hans Hübner hans.huebner@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 15:10, Leslie P. Polzersky@viridian-project.de wrote:
On Jun 25, 9:21 pm, Edi Weitz e...@agharta.de wrote:
The question is - what do you want to achieve with this regular expression? Can't you write it in a simpler way?
Isn't this pattern pretty useful in general:
A@B
where A and B are word characters and @ is a specific non-word character?
Sure, but the original bug report was about this:
(\w+)*\@\w+
I can't make any sense of this regular expression, but maybe it is because I am lacking some skills. Maybe Wu can explain what he wants to achive with it?
-Hans
cl-ppcre-devel site list cl-ppcre-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/mailman/listinfo/cl-ppcre-devel
Xiangjun Wu wrote:
Very sorry, it is a typo, :(
It should be:
(cl-ppcre:scan (cl-ppcre:create-scanner "(_\w+)*\@\w+") "______________________________________" :start 0)
but other examples indicate the accurate idea.
Looking at this I'm not sure what this is good for.
Why would we want to match strings of the form _xxx@xxx in a full-text indexer?
Perhaps it would be best to get rid of the whole messy regex (of which this is only a small part) and write a new documented one from scratch. Or use a custom state-based tokenizer.
Xiangjun Wu netawater@gmail.com writes:
(cl-ppcre:scan (cl-ppcre:create-scanner "(_\w+)*\@\w+") "______________________________________" :start 0)
Perhaps
(cl-ppcre:create-scanner "(_[_\w]+)?@\w+")
will work for your app? The problem in the original expression is the "+" followed by the "*" can lead to a combinatorial explosion.
If you loosen the requirement that all non-zero matches in the first expression must begin with an "_" you could have:
(cl-ppcre:create-scanner "[_\w]*@\w+")
Cheers, Chris Dean
片云天共远永夜月同孤
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 2:17 AM, Chris Dean ctdean@sokitomi.com wrote:
Xiangjun Wu netawater@gmail.com writes:
(cl-ppcre:scan (cl-ppcre:create-scanner "(_\w+)*\@\w+")
"______________________________________"
:start 0)Perhaps
(cl-ppcre:create-scanner "(_[_\w]+)?@\w+")
will work for your app? The problem in the original expression is the "+" followed by the "*" can lead to a combinatorial explosion.
If you loosen the requirement that all non-zero matches in the first expression must begin with an "_" you could have:
(cl-ppcre:create-scanner "[_\w]*@\w+")
Cheers, Chris Dean
cl-ppcre-devel site list cl-ppcre-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/mailman/listinfo/cl-ppcre-devel
Thank you, it works for our application.
cl-ppcre-devel@common-lisp.net
-
Chris Dean -
Hans Hübner -
Leslie P. Polzer -
Xiangjun Wu