On last notice it can't detect nested issues of your OP.
It could be done. Just would get baroque.
Probably not needed.
TT
On Sunday, 8 March 2020 13:16:10 UTC+1, TiddlyTweeter wrote:
> (This is pretty difficult to get right.)
>
>
> Its a very interesting regex issue. Regex often looks counter intuitive.
> Using negatives can get complicated.
>
> It IS possible to match the needed in one regex. But you would have to
> chop off the suffix since we can't currently do that by silent
> non-capturing, then reinstate it so that the "<<" becomes ">><<"
>
> (<<foo([^>])*?)([<]{2})
>
>
> That matches this ...
>
> [image: Annotation 2020-03-08 130948.jpg]
>
>
> --|match|--
>
> << suffix to replace
>
> TT
>
> Mat wrote:
>>
>> More compact:
>>
>> Find the *first* "<<foo "
>> ...that is not followed by "....>>" (where .... signifies any number of
>> characters, including none)
>> ...OR that IS followed by "....<<" or character/s that is forbidden
>> inside a short form macro call.
>>
>>
>> (This is pretty difficult to get right.)
>>
>> <:-)
>>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"TiddlyWiki" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/4b7e91af-68a2-41e2-b707-41a4836bd190%40googlegroups.com.
