[#393742] Getting the class of an object. — Ralph Shnelvar <ralphs@...32.com>

Consider;

14 messages 2012/03/06

[#393815] arcadia IDE requires tcl/tk and ruby-tk — Thufir Hawat <hawat.thufir@...>

which or where tcl and tk does arcadia require? Is this a gem which I

13 messages 2012/03/13

[#393952] What’s the best way to check if a feature/class has been loaded? — Nikolai Weibull <now@...>

Hi!

18 messages 2012/03/21
[#393953] Re: What’s the best way to check if a feature/class has been loaded? — Xavier Noria <fxn@...> 2012/03/21

Active Support has recently added qualified_const_* methods to Module

[#393954] Re: What’s the best way to check if a feature/class has been loaded? — Xavier Noria <fxn@...> 2012/03/21

Ah, that won't work in 1.8.

[#393959] Re: What’s the best way to check if a feature/class has been loaded? — Nikolai Weibull <now@...> 2012/03/21

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 16:43, Xavier Noria <fxn@hashref.com> wrote:

[#393960] Re: What’s the best way to check if a feature/class has been loaded? — Xavier Noria <fxn@...> 2012/03/21

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 8:17 PM, Nikolai Weibull <now@bitwi.se> wrote:

[#393961] Re: What’s the best way to check if a feature/class has been loaded? — Nikolai Weibull <now@...> 2012/03/21

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 20:48, Xavier Noria <fxn@hashref.com> wrote:

[#393962] Re: What’s the best way to check if a feature/class has been loaded? — Xavier Noria <fxn@...> 2012/03/21

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Nikolai Weibull <now@bitwi.se> wrote:

[#393967] Re: What’s the best way to check if a feature/class has been loaded? — Nikolai Weibull <now@...> 2012/03/22

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 22:11, Xavier Noria <fxn@hashref.com> wrote:

[#393969] Re: What’s the best way to check if a feature/class has been loaded? — Xavier Noria <fxn@...> 2012/03/22

On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 6:15 AM, Nikolai Weibull <now@bitwi.se> wrote:

[#394154] uninitialized constant SOCKSSocket — Resident Moron <lists@...>

I am running ruby 1.9.3 on a linux box. I would like to use

10 messages 2012/03/29

[#394160] Why z = Complex(1,2) rather than z = Complex.new(1,2)? — Ori Ben-Dor <lists@...>

What's this syntax, z = Complex(1,2), as opposed to z =

14 messages 2012/03/29

[#394175] shoes no such file to load -- rubygems — Mr theperson <lists@...>

I have installed shoes to develop GUI applications but when I try and

13 messages 2012/03/29

[#394201] Can't open url with a subdomain with an underscore — Jeroen van Ingen <lists@...>

I try to open the following URL: http://auto_diversen.marktplaza.nl/

10 messages 2012/03/30

[#394222] Ruby openssl ECC help plz — no name <lists@...>

I am confused on how to properly export public ECC key. I can see it

13 messages 2012/03/31

Re: regexp removing {xxx ... }

From: Bartosz Dziewoński <matma.rex@...>
Date: 2012-03-02 14:47:20 UTC
List: ruby-talk #393706
2012/3/2 Wybo Dekker <wybo@xs4all.nl>:
> I'm trying to treat LaTeX files - is there a trick to remove occurrences
> of {\large ... } from strings

I assume that curly braces can be arbitrarily nested within the \large
sections. In this case  the problem in general form can't be solved
using simply regular expressions - you'd have to actually parse the
LaTeX, or use  a crazy flavor such as .NET's one that actually allows
it.

However. If there's a limit in the nesting - for example you can tell
that nowhere in the text curlies within \large are nested more than
one deep, there are solutions. Let's start with simplest regex:
/\{\\large [^{}]+\}/. This works for your second example, but fail for
first. But we can fix it: consider this regex: /\{\\large
(?:[^{}]+|\{[^}]+\})+\}/. The parenthesized part will match either a
lot of non-brace characters, or a lot of non-brace characters
surrounded by one pair of braces, and then repeat it - and it works
for both of your examples. If you wan't to go deeper ;), you can once
again stick another alternative into the alt. with curlies - this
works to any depth (I'll leave it as exercise to the reader :) ). Of
course, there can always be constructed input on which this method
will fail, so you have to be ready to either accept that it stops
working correctly sometimes, or somehow pre-control your input.

When constructing regexes like this, you have to be careful to avoid
catastrophic backtracking, or matching your regex in worst case will
have exponential complexity.
http://www.regular-expressions.info/catastrophic.html

Here's a nice tool to try these regexps: http://regexpal.com/

-- Matma Rex

In This Thread