From: James Britt <jamesUNDERBARb@...>
Date: 2004-11-20T00:42:54+09:00
Subject: Re: Tales of the Regex (Re: About Regular Expressions)

Robert Klemme wrote:

> "James Britt" <jamesUNDERBARb@neurogami.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:419CF779.2080806@neurogami.com...
> 
> 
>>all substrings in a given set of substrings, irrespective of the order
>>of the substrings in either the target string or the set of
> 
> ubstrings?  )
> 
> Yes you can, but it's going to be uuuuugly and slooooow if you have more
> than two sub strings.  A set of one regexp per sub string is likely to be
> more efficient:
> 
> substrings = %w{foo bar baz}
> rxs = substrings.map {|s| Regexp.new(Regexp.escape(s))}
> 
> string = "klajsd askdjkahs bar asjdajsd asdbazagdjhagsdh f0dfdfuufoosds"
> puts "Got it: #{string}" if rxs.all? {|rx| rx =~ string}


Thank you.  I would be searching on possibly any number (but figure 5 or 
6 as an average) of such substrings.  The all? syntax is nice and clear.


> 
> 
>>One a side note, I wonder what it would take to write a domain language,
>>parable by Ruby, that let one write REs in plain-ish English?  Maybe
>>take some of the mystery out of regular expressions for most of the
>>common cases.  (Or would that just get people dependent on too much
>>hand-holding?)
> 
> 
> Such a language with the same expressiveness as typical regexps would be
> too verbose for me.  But I think I remember someone did something similar
> with Ruby.  Can't quite remember who it was or a mail thread subject but I
> do believe someone has attempted to do something in that direction.

Yes, the details were posted here the other day.  I thought it would be 
handy for folks who have a hard time remembering certain syntax, or want 
the intent of the regexp to be more clear.


Thanks,

James

> 
> Kind regards
> 
>     robert
> 
> 
> .
>