On Sun 6-Aug-06 12:51am -0600, A.J.Mechelynck wrote:
> Bill McCarthy wrote:
>> On Sat 5-Aug-06 10:42pm -0600, A.J.Mechelynck wrote:
>>> Bill McCarthy wrote:
>>>> Example 1:
>>>>
>>>> :echo "<" . matchstr(" 1.2345 ","[0-9.]") . ">"<CR>
>>>> <1>
>>>>
>>>> Example 2:
>>>> :echo "<" . matchstr(" 1.2345 ","[0-9.]*") . ">"<CR>
>>>> <>
>>>>
>>>> Why isn't the second exampe returning <1.2345>?
>>>>
>>>> Is there a better way of stripping spaces off a string?
>>> What you get is the first (leftmost) substring matching the pattern.
>>>
>>> In the first case the pattern matches exactly one dot or digit, and it
>>> matches the 1 at position 2.
>>>
>>> In the second case the pattern matches zero or more dots and digits, and
>>> it matches the null string at position 0.
>> That makes sense.
>>> If you had specified \+ as multi instead of * you would (IIUC) have got
>>> what you wanted.
>> I had:
>>
>> Example 3:
>>
>> :echo "<" . matchstr(" 1.2345 ","[0-9.]\+") . ">"<CR>
>> <>
>>
>> Example 4:
>>
>> :echo "<" . matchstr(" 1.2345 ","\s*\zs[0-9.]\+") . ">"<CR>
>> <>
>>
>> Why did both of those fail?
> When giving a double-quoted string to a function as an argument,
> backslashes are interpreted before the function receives the argument.
> Use single quotes to pass the argument literally; or if you want double
> quotes, then double the backslashes.
I'm a little embarrassed because I know that :-( This
correspondence will help reinforce the fact that strings
are interpreted as such first before they are passed on
while literals are not.
Thanks again!
--
Best regards,
Bill
