That would be too mean. I don't think it's the intention of the OEQ masters to decipher the entire internal workings of the SED processing language. But I bet the source code is out there if anyone wants to tackle it. ________________________________ From: Aamir Panjwani [aamir.panjw...@ivision.com.au] Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 6:44 PM To: Daniel Rodriguez; Michael Ciarfello; OSL Group Subject: RE: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] Xlate Rules: Wildcard * in Sets
Hmm looks like a interesting OEQ :) From: ccie_voice-boun...@onlinestudylist.com [mailto:ccie_voice-boun...@onlinestudylist.com] On Behalf Of Daniel Rodriguez Sent: Tuesday, 27 October 2009 4:43 AM To: Michael Ciarfello; OSL Group Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] Xlate Rules: Wildcard * in Sets Thanks for the reply Mike. It seems that no matter how many dots I have in the set, the asterisk will always cancel the last dot out. I read the voice translations rule doc again and noticed this: Wildcard Combination .* Any digit followed by none or more occurrences, effectively anything including null. I understand that wildcard combination and used it before my 1st set.. But maybe I’m thinking of it the wrong way… I’m thinking of my set as dot, dot, dot, asterisk. Four separate wildcards. But if it’s treated as a combination (as mentioned above) it’s more like dot, dot, dot-asterisk. In other words, the first two dots are anything from 0-9 twice, then dot-asterisk is treated as a wildcard combination matching anything including null.. and for some reason goes with null. I hope that theory makes some sense. Seems like it follows your idea below. I tried with more dots and got the same result – all but the last dot was used to match the last digits. I also replaced the * with a ? and got the same result. Both characters could possible match null. Thanks again. Dan From: Michael Ciarfello [mailto:mciarfe...@iplogic.com] Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 1:22 PM To: Daniel Rodriguez; OSL Group Subject: RE: Xlate Rules: Wildcard * in Sets Don’t know. Stick with what works. Seems because you have the first wildcard (which would cover the entire string in itself) then another one, the second one will take the rightmost two explicit dots and consider the third dot with the star is 0 or more occurrances, but decides on 0 occurrances for unknown reason. So you have the last two dots. If my explanation makes sense. Try it with 4 dots and a star. Should end up with 3 rightmost digits. From: ccie_voice-boun...@onlinestudylist.com [mailto:ccie_voice-boun...@onlinestudylist.com] On Behalf Of Daniel Rodriguez Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 12:28 PM To: OSL Group Subject: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] Xlate Rules: Wildcard * in Sets I found something interesting when testing voice translation rule sets… I have a voice translation rule that strips everything but the last 4 digits: /^.*\(….\)$/ /\1/ It’s very useful and allows me to strip the last 4 digits on inbound called party without having to know the full DNIS… but then I started to mess around with my sets and inserted a wildcard: /^.*\(…*\)$/ /\1/ Passing a number through this rule results in only the last TWO digits, yet my set contains THREE “.” followed by a “*”. Does the * cancel out one of the “.” when inside of a set? Thanks ahead of time. - Dan ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________ For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit www.ipexpert.com
