Remember to measure the performance of your regexes using a tool like Regex Buddy.
@Uli's version was using lazy quantifiers *? which maybe more accurate but depending on the data you're executing it against could be hideously inefficient due to runaway backtracking. You can read up on these types of issues in Mastering Regular Expressions or even I think in Regular Expressions Cookbook? You could also search Steven Levithans site for articles on the subject (he's a Regex guru). Mark @integralist Sent from my iPhone On 2 Aug 2011, at 13:06, Matthew Bramer <[email protected]> wrote: > In this case split("]").join("") wouldn't work, at least consistently enough > for my string to be parsed. I didn't provide any datasets, but the regex > above is working. I will give @Uli's regex a try though. More is always > better. :) > > Cheers, > Matt > -- > To view archived discussions from the original JSMentors Mailman list: > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ > > To search via a non-Google archive, visit here: > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected] -- To view archived discussions from the original JSMentors Mailman list: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ To search via a non-Google archive, visit here: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]
