It seems that an unmatched opening bracket makes it completely fail. My
guess is that the filter string is not valid so it doesn't even try. I
couldn't get a filter string containing a "[" to match anything.
On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 5:23 PM Craig Newman via use-liv
gt; On Jan 24, 2024, at 4:37 PM, Brian Milby via use-livecode
> wrote:
>
> I just want to clarify that this isn’t the regex version of filter but the
> wildcard pattern version. It is much less complicated than regex. Square
> brackets are used to group characters to be matc
I just want to clarify that this isn’t the regex version of filter but the
wildcard pattern version. It is much less complicated than regex. Square
brackets are used to group characters to be matched so you can use [abc]* to
match any item that starts with a, b, or c. The dictionary entry
Thanks Brian of putting me right (once again) . I had completely forgotten.the
escape sequence for the wildcards is [*] and [? (an unexpected way to escape a
character, but it is what it is) and so had overlooked that [ is itself a
special character.
And neither * nor ? In the msg box example c
Brian.
The original post tried to filter a string by filtering (without) that actual
string, and was interested in why that did not yield empty. Intuitively, the
result of such a filter operation ought always to be empty. The presence of the
char “[“ is the “culprit”. That is as far as I took
Your test misses the actual issue:
on mouseup
local tStr
local tFilter
put "a*b" into tFilter
put "anything bold" into tStr
filter tStr with tFilter
put tStr
end mouseup
Will yield "anything bold"
while using the following 2 lines:
put "
OK, instead of working I did this:
on mouseUp
repeat with y = 1 to 255
put "XX" & numToChar(y) & "XX" into temp
filter temp without temp
if temp <> "" then put y & return after accum
end repeat
answer accum
end mouseUp
There are two chara
Brian.
Nope. Those two chars pass through the filter, er, filtered.
Again, I did not test the entire character set.
Craig
> On Jan 24, 2024, at 11:05 AM, Brian Milby via use-livecode
> wrote:
>
> The only other two that would cause issues are ? and * which are single and
>
is the char “[“
> (ASCII 91). Any other char (including “]”) in the string works correctly,
> that is, nothing is left after the filter command executes.
>
> I do not know enough to say whether that particular char does something to
> the filter command, which may use regex so
I did not test the ASCII set exhaustively, but the culprit is the char “[“
(ASCII 91). Any other char (including “]”) in the string works correctly, that
is, nothing is left after the filter command executes.
I do not know enough to say whether that particular char does something to the
put "aaa[bbb" into tStr; put line 1 of tStr into tLine; filter tStr without
> tLine; put tStr
> I get (using MacOS, LC 9.6.11)
>
> aaa[bbb
>
> That is to say, the line is not filtered out.
>
> And:
>
> put "aaa[bbb" into tStr; filter tStr with
Try this in the msg box:
put "aaa[bbb" into tStr; put line 1 of tStr into tLine; filter tStr without
tLine; put tStr
I get (using MacOS, LC 9.6.11)
aaa[bbb
That is to say, the line is not filtered out.
And:
put "aaa[bbb" into tStr; filter tStr with tStr; put tStr
prod
Users should certainly never see regex! That’s covered in User Interface
Guidelines 101.
But surely you wouldn’t show them the LC wildcard filter either!
$@%?$@%?$@%?$@%?$@%?$@%?$@%?$@%?
Neville Smythe
Director, International Go Federation
VicePresident, Australian Go Association Inc.
> O
> On 1 Nov 2023, at 11:24 pm, Neville Smythe
> wrote:
>
> But I suspect you should allow for the required strings to be followed by
> punctuation or be at the end of the line, things which are hard to do with a
> simple LC wildcard search, at least in a single filter.
I agree David, regular expressions look intimidating at first sight. But in
fact if you compare your intuitive attempt
filter tList with “*with [you,u] *”
with the regex which does what you set out to do
filter tList with regex “.*with (you|u) .*”
they are almost exactly the same – for very
lton Glasgow Partnership
Director, Child & Family Training, York
Honorary Professor (SOCAMRU), Nottingham Trent University
LinkedIn Profile
> On 31 Oct 2023, at 8:59 pm, Neville Smythe via use-livecode
> wrote:
>
> Forgot any number of other chars after the non-numeric character
&g
string containing no regular expressions)
Because I am lazy, and a simple soul, I will probably just split the task into
two filter commands - which will deliver exactly what I want at only a minimal
time and thought overhead.
Cheers
David G
> On 30 Oct 2023, at 7:29 pm, Mark Waddingham via
Forgot any number of other chars after the non-numeric character
Filter tList with regex "(?i).*with (you|u)([^a-zA-Z].*|$)”
Now I’ve really got to go … hope I’ve got it all right this time!
Neville Smythe
___
use-livecode mailing lis
Filter tList with regex "(?i).*with (you|u)( .*|\.|$)"
I did forget something … wth you might be folllowed by a comma or colon or
something so the last brackets should search for either any non alphabetic
character or the end of line, so think (going from memory here)
Filter tList
lines ending in with you, or a period
.*with (you|u)( .*|\.|$)
And what about “With You”. Since regex is case sensitive by default
(?i).*with (you|u)( .*|\.|$)
Filter tList with regex "(?i).*with (you|u)( .*|\.|$)"
Writing this in a rush so I hope I haven’t got that wrong
Nevi
The filter command has had a ‘with[out] regex’ form for a long time - so I’d
use a regex instead :)
(I’m pretty sure [ ] is a set of characters to match, rather than a list of sub
strings, in wildcard expressions)
Warmest Regards,
Mark.
Sent from my iPhone
> On 30 Oct 2023, at 17:19, Da
ant).
If I put a single space after the brackets the first bracketed string is
ignored and the filter only finds “with u “
Hope someone can help me stop pulling my baffled face
Cheers
David Glasgow
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runr
aig Newman via use-livecode wrote:
Have not played with a method of keeping it all in one line. But can you filter
twice, storing the first result and then running it again?
Craig
On Oct 30, 2023, at 1:17 PM, David Glasgow via use-livecode
wrote:
Hi folks,
I am doing the above and str
OK: well I had a bash with a set like this:
with unlimited cheese
with you
with u
with udders clagged with glaur
with youthful naivety
and your filter grabbed all of them. :(
I tried this:
with"with [you, u,]*"
and got the same.
On reading in the dictionary I found this:
Have not played with a method of keeping it all in one line. But can you filter
twice, storing the first result and then running it again?
Craig
> On Oct 30, 2023, at 1:17 PM, David Glasgow via use-livecode
> wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
> I am doing the above and struggling wit
t want).
If I put a single space after the brackets the first bracketed string is
ignored and the filter only finds “with u “
Hope someone can help me stop pulling my baffled face
Cheers
David Glasgow
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lis
Thanks, Dick! I’ll play with that and see how I get on. The filter is in a
loop which mostly uses simple strings, so presumably I would need to separate
any regex filters into a separate loop using 'with regex'.
I have also learned that this is called “alternation”. Didn’t know tha
I just ran a speed test on Dick Kriesel’s method for removing duplicates and
keeping the original sort order. It is indeed faster than Jacque’s method
Sorting 11000 lines of text including 1000 duplicated lines:
Jacque’s method: 2.807 seconds [lineoffset is really slow, and in effect the
text i
Good idea, thanks Dick. Your scripts are always so elegant.
--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
On March 14, 2022 7:11:13 PM Dick Kriesel via use-livecode
wrote:
Since order must be maintained, it’s probably faster not to sp
Hi Dick
Thank you so much for your time in sending me this solution. I’ve already
learned a lot and I have yet to actually play with it!
Cheers,
Roger
> On Mar 14, 2022, at 5:08 PM, Dick Kriesel via use-livecode
> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Mar 13, 2022, at 1:05 PM, J. Landman Gay via use-livecode
> On Mar 13, 2022, at 1:05 PM, J. Landman Gay via use-livecode
> wrote:
>
> On 3/12/22 8:54 PM, Roger Guay via use-livecode wrote:
>> I have a field with about a thousand lines with many duplicate lines, and I
>> want to delete the duplicates. Seems like this should be simple but I am
>> run
Ah, I see. Thank you again, Bob.
Roger
> On Mar 14, 2022, at 2:37 PM, Bob Sneidar via use-livecode
> wrote:
>
> The UNIQUE clause is the UNIQUE combination of ALL the columns put together.
> If I used:
>
> SELECT city,state UNIQUE FROM zip codes where state = 'CA'
>
> I would get every un
The UNIQUE clause is the UNIQUE combination of ALL the columns put together. If
I used:
SELECT city,state UNIQUE FROM zip codes where state = 'CA'
I would get every unique city/state combination in CA, whereas if I used:
SELECT state UNIQUE from zip codes where state = 'CA'
I would get the
Thanks ver much for your clarifications, Bob although I’m not sure I understand
your correction.
Roger
> On Mar 14, 2022, at 8:48 AM, Bob Sneidar via use-livecode
> wrote:
>
> Actually I must correct myself. That will not work because the unique value
> column (typically an autoincrementing
Actually I must correct myself. That will not work because the unique value
column (typically an autoincrementing integer) will not be unique for each
record. Instead, assuming your lines of text are in a column called "textdata"
SELECT textdata UNIQUE FROM...
Bob S
> On Mar 14, 2022, at 08:
They depend on the fact that arrays cannot have duplicate keys. Dumping the
data into an SQL database and querying using the UNIQUE statement would do it
too.
SELECT * UNIQUE from ...
Bob S
> On Mar 13, 2022, at 13:16 , Roger Guay via use-livecode
> wrote:
>
> Thank you Jacqueline, Alex
Thank you Jacqueline, Alex and Terry. Very interesting new (for me) methods
that I would never have come up with on my own.
Roger
> On Mar 13, 2022, at 1:05 PM, J. Landman Gay via use-livecode
> wrote:
>
> On 3/12/22 8:54 PM, Roger Guay via use-livecode wrote:
>> I have a field with about a
On 3/12/22 8:54 PM, Roger Guay via use-livecode wrote:
I have a field with about a thousand lines with many duplicate lines, and I
want to delete the duplicates. Seems like this should be simple but I am
running around in circles. Can anyone help me with this?
Making the list into an array is
lt;https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=XC5s6wwJ&hl=en>
>
>
> From: use-livecode on behalf of Roger
> Guay via use-livecode
> Date: Sunday, 13 March 2022 at 1:55 pm
> To: use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
> Cc: Roger Guay
> Subject: Speaking of Filter and Mat
scholar.google.com/citations?user=XC5s6wwJ&hl=en>
From: use-livecode on behalf of Roger
Guay via use-livecode
Date: Sunday, 13 March 2022 at 1:55 pm
To: use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Cc: Roger Guay
Subject: Speaking of Filter and Match...
I have a field with about a thousand lines w
I have a field with about a thousand lines with many duplicate lines, and I
want to delete the duplicates. Seems like this should be simple but I am
running around in circles. Can anyone help me with this?
Thanks,
Roger
___
use-livecode mailing list
us
Ok, that straightened out my confusion.
Thanks!
> On Mar 12, 2022, at 5:40 PM, Mark Wieder via use-livecode
> wrote:
>
> Exactly. You want matchtext, not filter.
>
> There is a way to finesse this if you really need to use filter:
>
> local tSubString, tTarget, tL
On 3/12/22 14:21, Rick Harrison via use-livecode wrote:
So what did it filter? It’s the same string I started with.
Exactly. You want matchtext, not filter.
There is a way to finesse this if you really need to use filter:
local tSubString, tTarget, tLargeTextString
local tResult
Your source was only one line. The default for filter is to work by line. It
returns all lines that match, hence the same string you started with.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Mar 12, 2022, at 5:22 PM, Rick Harrison via use-livecode
> wrote:
>
>
> put "THIS*FIND&qu
put "THIS*FIND" into tTarget
put “abcdefghijkTHISISMYTEXTTOFINDlmnopqrstuvwxyz” into tLargeTextString
put tLargeTextString into pText
— Adding your code here Mark:
put ".*THIS.*FIND.*" into tTarget
filter pText with regex pattern tTarget into tFilteredTextResult
answer
On 3/12/22 2:29 PM, Brian Milby via use-livecode wrote:
Filter removes non-matching lines.
Unless you use "filter x without y".
--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperac
On 3/12/22 12:06, Rick Harrison via use-livecode wrote:
Hi Mark,
matchText works fine.
That doesn’t explain why “filter” doesn’t work though.
Yes. It does. Filter won't give you a substring.
You can use filter to get the whole line of text, but you'll still have
to dig out the su
Filter removes non-matching lines.
On Sat, Mar 12, 2022 at 3:07 PM Rick Harrison via use-livecode <
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> matchText works fine.
>
> That doesn’t explain why “filter” doesn’t work though.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Rick
>
&
Hi Mark,
matchText works fine.
That doesn’t explain why “filter” doesn’t work though.
Thanks!
Rick
> On Mar 12, 2022, at 2:05 PM, Mark Wieder via use-livecode
> wrote:
>
> Try matchtext rather than filter:
>
> local tTextt, tFound?
> put matchtext(tLargeTextSt
On 3/12/22 08:43, Rick Harrison via use-livecode wrote:
Good Morning!
I’m trying to get filter to work with some text and so far no success at all.
Given large string: abcdefghijkTHISISMYTEXTTOFINDlmnopqrstuvwxyz
I want the text between THIS and FIND which could be anything like ISLJFKKDKLS
Try:
put "*THISISMYTEXTTOFIND*" into tTarget
put “abcdefghijkTHISISMYTEXTTOFINDlmnopqrstuvwxyz” into tLargeTextString
put tLargeTextString into pText
filter pText with tTarget into tFilteredTextResult
answer "tFilteredTextResult = " & tFilteredTextResult
Good Morning!
I’m trying to get filter to work with some text and so far no success at all.
Given large string: abcdefghijkTHISISMYTEXTTOFINDlmnopqrstuvwxyz
I want the text between THIS and FIND which could be anything like ISLJFKKDKLS
It’s OK to include the THIS and FIND in my result.
I’m
> On Mar 3, 2022, at 2:30 AM, David V Glasgow via use-livecode
> wrote:
>
> I can filter text using a single term plus a numerical range s eg:
> *re 1[0-5]*
> matching a text stem “re “ followed by any one of 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 or 15
>
> But is there a form where t
Hi Folks,
I can filter text using a single term plus a numerical range s eg:
*re 1[0-5]*
matching a text stem “re “ followed by any one of 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 or 15
But is there a form where the alternatives are also text? eg something like:
*big [“dog”, “cat”, “fish”]*
The above searches
ecific example by the function of the terminal ‘+’ If you are only finding
one character, why do you need to specify 'at least one' of one char?
Ha!
Yeah, I actually mistyped that (moi?).
"^\[" is all that's necessary for the filter command.
...but Klaus' form of "
Ha!
Yeah, I actually mistyped that (moi?).
"^\[" is all that's necessary for the filter command.
...but Klaus' form of "[[]*[]]" is actually better if the field has
[500] and then text
--
Mark Wieder
ahsoftw...@gmail.com
_
Apologies for barging in, but I am confused by regex generally and in this
specific example by the function of the terminal ‘+’ If you are only finding
one character, why do you need to specify 'at least one' of one char?
Cheers
David G
> On 20 Nov 2020, at 8:44 am, Klaus major-k via use-live
ngham via use-livecode wrote:
>>>> I think:
>>>> filter fld 1 with "[[]*"
>>>> Should do the trick...
>>> As an alternative,
>>> filter fld 1 with regex pattern "^\[+"
>>> also does the trick.
>> thanks, bu
On 11/19/20 9:09 AM, Klaus major-k via use-livecode wrote:
Hi Mark,
Am 19.11.2020 um 18:07 schrieb Mark Wieder via use-livecode
:
On 11/19/20 7:38 AM, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode wrote:
I think:
filter fld 1 with "[[]*"
Should do the trick...
As an alternative,
filter
Klaus.
I use "filter" here and there, mostly with regex or wildCards.
But nothing works for me either,:
Filter yourText with "["
Filter yourText where each contains "["
Not sure what is going on. Where is Thieery?
Craig
-Original Message-
From: use-live
I don’t think I could watch! Oh the horror!
Bob S
> On Nov 19, 2020, at 9:17 AM, Keith Clarke via use-livecode
> wrote:
>
> The chronicles of regex - a potential blockbuster there, Bob! :-)
> Best,
> Keith
>
>> On 19 Nov 2020, at 16:49, Bob Sneidar via use-livecode
>> wrote:
>>
>> No
The chronicles of regex - a potential blockbuster there, Bob! :-)
Best,
Keith
> On 19 Nov 2020, at 16:49, Bob Sneidar via use-livecode
> wrote:
>
> No one escapes the lair of the Regex Demon. Except for maybe Riddick.
>
> Bob S
>
>
> On Nov 19, 2020, at 8:15 AM, Keith Clarke via use-livecode
Hi Mark,
> Am 19.11.2020 um 18:07 schrieb Mark Wieder via use-livecode
> :
> On 11/19/20 7:38 AM, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode wrote:
>> I think:
>> filter fld 1 with "[[]*"
>> Should do the trick...
> As an alternative,
> filter fld 1 with
On 11/19/20 7:38 AM, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode wrote:
I think:
filter fld 1 with "[[]*"
Should do the trick...
As an alternative,
filter fld 1 with regex pattern "^\[+"
also does the trick.
--
Mark Wieder
No one escapes the lair of the Regex Demon. Except for maybe Riddick.
Bob S
On Nov 19, 2020, at 8:15 AM, Keith Clarke via use-livecode
mailto:use-livecode@lists.runrev.com>> wrote:
Ha, yes I understand that desire - and Mark’s one-character escape trick beats
my hack to bypass the lair of the
arke via use-livecode
>> :
>>
>> Hi Klaus,
>> Maybe iterate the lines - untested...
>> repeat for each line l in fld 1
>> if and( offset( “[“, l) > 0 , offset(“]”, l) > 0 ) then put line l of fld 1
>> into tList
>> end repeat
>> put tLi
nd repeat
> put tList
yes, sure, but "lazy moi" wanted to use FILTER and also understand why my first
script did not work. :-)
> Best,
> Keith
Best
Klaus
--
Klaus Major
https://www.major-k.de
kl...@major-k.de
___
use-liveco
Hi Mark,
> Am 19.11.2020 um 16:38 schrieb Mark Waddingham via use-livecode
> :
>
>> So I thought
>> ...
>> filter fld 1 with "[*"
>> ...
>> would do the job, but that EMPTIES the field!?
>> Obviously this [ interferes with some REGEX mech
gt; Hi all,
>
> I am surely missing something here with filter.
>
> I have a field with some lines like:
> ...
> [500]
> text yadda
> yadda
> [100]
> ...
> And want to filter the field that only the lines with [...] remain in the
> field.
>
> So I thou
So I thought
...
filter fld 1 with "[*"
...
would do the job, but that EMPTIES the field!?
Obviously this [ interferes with some REGEX mechanism of filter?
So what should I use now?
I think:
filter fld 1 with "[[]*"
Should do the trick...
Basically, you can use &#x
Hi all,
I am surely missing something here with filter.
I have a field with some lines like:
...
[500]
text yadda
yadda
[100]
...
And want to filter the field that only the lines with [...] remain in the field.
So I thought
...
filter fld 1 with "[*"
...
would do the job, but that E
Mark Talluto's bug is exactly what I see. It may be related to a certain
type of scripting, or a particular sequence of commands. I crashed several
times in a row within a minute of a restart, so maybe the handler I was
debugging was to blame.
--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.co
I am using V9.0.5 rc1 and I am not having any of these kinds of debugging
crashes. I rarely step over though. Almost always I step into or out of. (I
think I have that right.)
Bob S
> On Jun 21, 2019, at 14:33 , J. Landman Gay via use-livecode
> wrote:
>
> On 6/21/19 2:48 PM, Alex Tweedly v
On Jun 21, 2019, at 2:33 PM, J. Landman Gay via use-livecode
wrote:
>
> I see that all the time. If you step over, the dot location fixes itself at
> least here. Until the crash, anyway. It doesn't crash right away, it seems to
> be a cumulative thing, so you get a few chances before everythin
On 6/21/19 2:48 PM, Alex Tweedly via use-livecode wrote:
On 21/06/2019 19:38, J. Landman Gay via use-livecode wrote:
My only excuse is that I've been avoiding stepping through the
debugger because LC has been crashing when I do that. I've sent in
many crash logs but it's only recently I've dis
Yes it is in memory, but it makes me think there might be a use case for
allowing the creation of a file based database. I'll update it and repost on
the list.
Bob S
> On Jun 21, 2019, at 12:57 , Tom Glod via use-livecode
> wrote:
>
> very good thanks for elaborating Bob...it makes sen
very good thanks for elaborating Bob...it makes sense that there are
use cases where the library really kicks it.. esp since its an in
memory database (assuming). Its a good idea, making me rethink a couple of
things.
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 12:06 PM Alex Tweedly via use-livecode <
use-li
On 21/06/2019 19:38, J. Landman Gay via use-livecode wrote:
My only excuse is that I've been avoiding stepping through the
debugger because LC has been crashing when I do that. I've sent in
many crash logs but it's only recently I've discovered it happens only
with Step Over. It's hard to bel
Found the problem. My script local was being emptied for some reason, so
there was nothing to filter. After repopulating all data it worked.
My only excuse is that I've been avoiding stepping through the debugger
because LC has been crashing when I do that. I've sent in many crash
Hi Bob,
It sounds like your library is something I could benefit from :-)
I know it's been mentioned on the list before, but I've lost track of
where to get it from, and a quick search didn't turn anything up. Could
you please send a reminder (either to the list or direct to me if you
prefer
Hi Tom.
So the little benchmarking I did originally showed that my method was a little
longer, as I still have to iterate once through the array to populate the
database. Where it really shines is that you can do complex queries, as well as
multiple column sorts before converting back to an ar
use, "where" might be interesting.)
> On Jun 21, 2019, at 1:01 AM, J. Landman Gay via use-livecode
> wrote:
>
> I spoke too soon. When I tested, I hard-coded a value as the filter string.
> But when I use a variable, it fails as it did before. The elements of the
Am 21.06.2019 um 09:01 schrieb
use-livecode-requ...@lists.runrev.com<mailto:use-livecode-requ...@lists.runrev.com>:
From: "J. Landman Gay"
I spoke too soon. When I tested, I hard-coded a value as the filter
string. But when I use a variable, it fails as it did before. The
I spoke too soon. When I tested, I hard-coded a value as the filter
string. But when I use a variable, it fails as it did before. The
elements of the array all start with a 4-character string followed by an
underscore, for example: ER01_some text here
My variable contains "ER01":
Thanks to all for the replies. Monte, I didn't see your post until Tom
quoted it, for some reason it didn't arrive here.
At any rate, I'd already tried "filter elements of..." and it failed
which is why I posted. But I must have had my filter wrong because I
just tri
idea Monte
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 6:19 PM Monte Goulding via use-livecode <
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote:
> Hi Jacque, does the output also need to be a sequential numeric array? If
> so then no variant of the filter command will help. If not then can’t you
> `filter eleme
Hi Jacque, does the output also need to be a sequential numeric array? If so
then no variant of the filter command will help. If not then can’t you `filter
elements of theArray with “*foobar*”``? It would be a nice addition to filter
elements to have `as sequence` or something so the result had
quot; will work:
filter elements of testDistance where each > 20.5 into failedDistance
> On Jun 20, 2019, at 2:56 PM, J. Landman Gay via use-livecode
> wrote:
>
> I need to filter a numeric array by the content of the keys, not by the keys
> themselves. Is there a way to do
I think the filtering of array items was introduced in 8.1, so combine and
split might not be needed. However, unless pattern matching will do, one has to
wait until 9.5 to use the "where" clause in "filter".
> On Jun 20, 2019, at 3:37 PM, hh via use-livecode
> wr
You would have to also sort. Also, the array might not be sorted after the
split.
Bob S
> On Jun 20, 2019, at 14:37 , hh via use-livecode
> wrote:
>
> Why not "combine array V > filter V > split V"?
>
>> JLG wrote:
>> I need to filter a numeric a
Why not "combine array V > filter V > split V"?
> JLG wrote:
> I need to filter a numeric array by the content of the keys, not by the
> keys themselves. Is there a way to do that without looping through the
> entire array
man Gay via use-livecode
> wrote:
>
> I need to filter a numeric array by the content of the keys, not by the keys
> themselves. Is there a way to do that without looping through the entire
> array and looking at each element?
>
> --
> Jacqueline Landman Gay |
In 9.5, perhaps,
filter ... where
will do it.
> On Jun 20, 2019, at 2:56 PM, J. Landman Gay via use-livecode
> wrote:
>
> I need to filter a numeric array by the content of the keys, not by the keys
> themselves. Is there a way to do that without looping through the enti
I need to filter a numeric array by the content of the keys, not by the
keys themselves. Is there a way to do that without looping through the
entire array and looking at each element?
--
Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com
HyperActive Software | http
Hello folks,
I am writing an academic paper on an analysis of internet predator messages
undertaken using an LC app.
A few of the filtered terms I used incorporated wildcards (I avoided regular
expressions). I need to reference a published source for the implementation of
wildcards within L
LiveCode
Cc: Bob Sneidar
Subject: Re: filter list_of_files with REGEX xyz?
Half want cake, the other half, pie.
Bob S
> On Aug 17, 2018, at 09:45 , Mark Wieder via use-livecode
wrote:
>
> On 08/17/2018 08:54 AM, Ralph DiMola via use-livecode wrote:
>> True true... I thought about it
Half want cake, the other half, pie.
Bob S
> On Aug 17, 2018, at 09:45 , Mark Wieder via use-livecode
> wrote:
>
> On 08/17/2018 08:54 AM, Ralph DiMola via use-livecode wrote:
>> True true... I thought about it but left it as is just in case there was an
>> image without a file name before t
On 08/17/2018 08:54 AM, Ralph DiMola via use-livecode wrote:
True true... I thought about it but left it as is just in case there was an
image without a file name before the ".". I did not want it to be missed.
You know users...
LOL
--
Mark Wieder
ahsoftw...@gmail.com
__
e-livecode [mailto:use-livecode-boun...@lists.runrev.com] On Behalf
Of Mark Wieder via use-livecode
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2018 11:41 AM
To: Ralph DiMola via use-livecode
Cc: Mark Wieder
Subject: Re: filter list_of_files with REGEX xyz?
On 08/17/2018 07:13 AM, Ralph DiMola via use-livecode wrote
On 08/17/2018 07:13 AM, Ralph DiMola via use-livecode wrote:
filter tList with regex pattern "(?i).*\.(jpe?g|png|gif)$"
For a file list that should probably be
filter tList with regex pattern "(?i).+\.(jpe?g|png|gif)$"
unless you explicitly want to see file n
1 - 100 of 360 matches
Mail list logo
