On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 4:28 PM, Wacek Kusnierczyk
<waclaw.marcin.kusnierc...@idi.ntnu.no> wrote:
> Rau, Roland wrote:
>>
>> P.S. Any suggestions how to become more proficient with regular
>> expressions? The O'Reilly book ("Mastering...")? Whenever I tried
>> anything more complicated than basic usage (things like ^ $ * . ) in R,
>> I was way faster to write a new function (like above) instead of finding
>> a regex solution.
>>
>
> the book you mention is good.
> you may also consider http://www.regular-expressions.info/
>
> regexes are usually well explained with lots of examples in perl books.
>
>> By the way: it might be still possible to *write* regular expressions,
>> but what about code re-use? Are there people who can easily *read*
>> complicated regular expressions?
>>
>
>
> in some cases it is possible to write regular expressions in a way that
> facilitates reading them by a human. in perl, for example, you can use
> so-called readable regexes:
>
> /
> (.+) # match and remember at least one arbitrary character
> [.] # match a dot
> [^.]+ # match at least one non-dot character
> $ # end of string anchor
> /x;
>
> you can also use within regex comments:
>
> /(.+)(?# one or more chars)[.](?# a dot)[^.]+(?# one or more
> non-dots)$(?# end of string)/
>
>
> nothing of the sorts in r, however.
Supports that if you begin the regular expression with (?x) and
use perl = TRUE. See ?regexp
______________________________________________
R-help@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
