Ah k. My mistake again, works with the simplified old filter, not the current full regex filter.
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 8:16 PM, Mike Bonner <bonnm...@gmail.com> wrote: > My mistake. Works with filter too. :) > > On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 8:13 PM, Mike Bonner <bonnm...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> The regex builder thats part of LC is pretty good for immediate feedback >> too, and has the benefit that it can place (hopefull working) code into the >> clipboard for pasting into script, after choosing matchtext or matchchunk. >> (still helpful for figuring out the regex for filter, though no >> autogenerated code) All you have to do after pasting is specify the >> container of text to check. It is limited i'm sure, but is still pretty >> darn helpful. >> >> On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 7:05 PM, Kay C Lan <lan.kc.macm...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 12:44 AM, Bob Sneidar < >>> bobsnei...@iotecdigital.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> > I read up on this, thinking that LC was implementing some substandard >>> > regex functionality. Turns out this is the state of affairs in the >>> regex >>> > world. >>> > >>> > I don't know where Pete was reading that certain regex characters are >>> not >>> supported, and whilst I agree the Dictionary is very scarce with regex >>> examples in the entry for matchText it states that LC uses the PCRE >>> implementation of regex. Yes there are different flavours of regex which >>> is >>> why I like this online regex tester: >>> >>> https://regex101.com/#pcre >>> >>> It allows you to select the flavour of regex you want to use; too many of >>> the other online regex testers are JavaScript based or Python. >>> >>> This site has a load of example (if you click on the Community tab at the >>> top) so in many cases you don't even have to write any regex as someone >>> has >>> already written it for you. It's also nice that if you do write the regex >>> yourself (or click on one of the examples) the Explanation box at top >>> right >>> automatically fills with an explanation of what it's doing - which may or >>> may not match what you're trying to achieve ;-) >>> >>> But best of all, unlike writing regex in LC which gives you no feedback >>> at >>> all about your syntax, by using the online test you are given immediate >>> feedback, i.e. if you enter the regex Pete listed in his original post >>> the >>> online tester immediately highlights the opening bracket in red - and in >>> the Explanation box it tells you that it's missing it's closing bracket. >>> Easy. >>> >>> If it works on this website it will work in LC. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> use-livecode mailing list >>> use-livecode@lists.runrev.com >>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your >>> subscription preferences: >>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode >>> >> >> > _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
