Re: [NF] RegEx Help
On Jun 15, 2007, at 7:25 AM, Ted Roche wrote: > a patchy, clumsy, > awkward, hard-to-maintain or fragile fix I'll buy that... Ken "Kluge" Kixmoeller ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [NF] RegEx Help
Problem solved. Instead of trying match on an exclusion, I'm doing a match on what is allowed. For this application we are trying to minimize the amount of punctuation on mailing labels and we wanted a nice and tidy grid view that is sortable by last name and company name. I agree thatbreaking the names into multiple fields is a good idea, but in this case it would generally slow down the heads-down data entry process and use up screen space that could be used for something else. We are tracking the entity type (LLC, Individual, Corporation, and Partnership) so we can also bound over to the entity type to validate the data entry of names that could be either a person or a company. For fields in which it is a person, I can make sure that the user follows the pattern. Also, I thing regular expressions are a bit easier than parsing the string ourselves. Have a good weekend everyone, Frank On 6/15/07, Bill Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Frank, > > I've solved this problem with a "matchcode builder" that parses the name > field from right to left, skipping words in a developed list such as Jr, > Sr, etc. etc. to isolate the last name, which is then copied into the > matchcode field for dupe detection, sorting and presenting address lists > in alphabetic order. > > For firm names, I require a flag so the matchcode builder process takes > the 1st, rather then the last, name. The operator has to key this flag > during entry or add it later. > > I've done this for a long time now, and am still happy with the > solution, rather then even trying to require the operator to enter fixed > fields. Another angle is that sometimes it's necessary to import address > lists from other sources, which gets back to being able to handle names > and addresses as they would be written on an envelope. Of course if the > addresses being imported are structured some other way, then special > handling to import is required, but I do prefer the natural way. > > > Bill > > > > > > One of the problems is there are so many ways that the > > string could be > > > written depending on whether it referred to a couple, > > individual, or > > > company. This mean you would need to write many Rx(s) to catch all > > > the possibilities, and you still might not have an Rx that > > is bullet > > > proof. If you're using perl, Activestate has a doc on Rx > > that might be > > > helpful. > > > > > > What I'm trying to accomplish is a way to nudge the user in > > to entering name data consistently. > > > > Our preferred methods for people are listed below: > > > > BURCAW, FRANK > > BURCAW, FRANK W > > BURCAW, FRANK & STEPHANIE > > > > This will allow for better sorting in grid views. When it's > > time to print, then I'll rearrange them to a first name last > > name layout. No commas would indicate that it is a company name. > > > > So I was trying to build a regular expression that would > > match the last name, first name pattern as long as a list of > > words also did not exist. > > > > I'l still struggling with this and would appreciate any assistance. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Frank > > > > > [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
RE: [NF] RegEx Help
Frank, I've solved this problem with a "matchcode builder" that parses the name field from right to left, skipping words in a developed list such as Jr, Sr, etc. etc. to isolate the last name, which is then copied into the matchcode field for dupe detection, sorting and presenting address lists in alphabetic order. For firm names, I require a flag so the matchcode builder process takes the 1st, rather then the last, name. The operator has to key this flag during entry or add it later. I've done this for a long time now, and am still happy with the solution, rather then even trying to require the operator to enter fixed fields. Another angle is that sometimes it's necessary to import address lists from other sources, which gets back to being able to handle names and addresses as they would be written on an envelope. Of course if the addresses being imported are structured some other way, then special handling to import is required, but I do prefer the natural way. Bill > > One of the problems is there are so many ways that the > string could be > > written depending on whether it referred to a couple, > individual, or > > company. This mean you would need to write many Rx(s) to catch all > > the possibilities, and you still might not have an Rx that > is bullet > > proof. If you're using perl, Activestate has a doc on Rx > that might be > > helpful. > > > What I'm trying to accomplish is a way to nudge the user in > to entering name data consistently. > > Our preferred methods for people are listed below: > > BURCAW, FRANK > BURCAW, FRANK W > BURCAW, FRANK & STEPHANIE > > This will allow for better sorting in grid views. When it's > time to print, then I'll rearrange them to a first name last > name layout. No commas would indicate that it is a company name. > > So I was trying to build a regular expression that would > match the last name, first name pattern as long as a list of > words also did not exist. > > I'l still struggling with this and would appreciate any assistance. > > Best regards, > > Frank > ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [NF] RegEx Help
Not to make your life more difficult but a comma in a company name is pretty common so making the assumption that the presence of a comma is a delimiter between last name and first name is going to bite you. Ideally you would have a separate column to store the parts of a name as well as the company. It sounds like you're just storing the name in a single column. If you really want to nudge your user's, change the UI to make them enter parts separately, even if you're not storing them that way. Frank Burcaw wrote: > What I'm trying to accomplish is a way to nudge the user in to > entering name data consistently. > > Our preferred methods for people are listed below: > > BURCAW, FRANK > BURCAW, FRANK W > BURCAW, FRANK & STEPHANIE > > This will allow for better sorting in grid views. When it's time to > print, then I'll rearrange them to a first name last name layout. No > commas would indicate that it is a company name. > > So I was trying to build a regular expression that would match the > last name, first name pattern as long as a list of words also did not > exist. > > I'l still struggling with this and would appreciate any assistance. > > Best regards, > > Fran -- Richard Kaye Vice President Artfact/RFC Systems Voice: 617.219.1038 Fax: 617.219.1001 For the fastest response time, please send your support queries to: Technical Support - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australian Support - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Internet Support - [EMAIL PROTECTED] All Other Requests - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - This message has been checked for viruses before sending. - ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [NF] RegEx Help
> One of the problems is there are so many ways that the string could be > written depending on whether it referred to a couple, individual, or > company. This mean you would need to write many Rx(s) to catch all the > possibilities, and you still might not have an Rx that is bullet proof. > If you're using perl, Activestate has a doc on Rx that might be helpful. What I'm trying to accomplish is a way to nudge the user in to entering name data consistently. Our preferred methods for people are listed below: BURCAW, FRANK BURCAW, FRANK W BURCAW, FRANK & STEPHANIE This will allow for better sorting in grid views. When it's time to print, then I'll rearrange them to a first name last name layout. No commas would indicate that it is a company name. So I was trying to build a regular expression that would match the last name, first name pattern as long as a list of words also did not exist. I'l still struggling with this and would appreciate any assistance. Best regards, Frank ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [NF] RegEx Help
On 6/15/07, Ted Roche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: To my ears, a "workaround" is a description of necessary work: something a coder has to write, an implementation of a feature despite what is offered by the BIOS, OS APIs or programming environment. A kluge is a description of the resulting work: a patchy, clumsy, awkward, hard-to-maintain or fragile fix might be a kluge; compare-and-contrast with "righteous hack." -- Ted Roche Ted Roche & Associates, LLC http://www.tedroche.com ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [NF] RegEx Help
> That reminds me ... what is the difference between a workaround and a > kludge ? http://www.hacker-dictionary.com/terms/kluge -- Ted Roche Ted Roche & Associates, LLC http://www.tedroche.com ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [NF] RegEx Help
One of the problems is there are so many ways that the string could be written depending on whether it referred to a couple, individual, or company. This mean you would need to write many Rx(s) to catch all the possibilities, and you still might not have an Rx that is bullet proof. If you're using perl, Activestate has a doc on Rx that might be helpful. http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/docs/ActivePerl/5.8/lib/Pod/perlrequick.html or http://tinyurl.com/3c9suw Regards, LelandJ Frank Burcaw wrote: > I'm about ready to throw in the towel. > > Let's say I have the strings "JONES, ROBERT" , "ROBERT JONES INC" , > and "JONES, ROBERT & JOAN" > > I'm trying to use a regular expression to determine if the sting is > an individual (or couple) or not so I came up with [\sA-Z]+,[\sA-Z&]+ > > It works pretty good, but I realized that the user could enter a > comma before the word INC, LLC, CORP etc, like "ROBERT JONES, LLC". > > I certain that there is a way to do this, but after wasting several > hours, I'm beginning to think that there isn't. > > Best regards, > > Frank > > [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [NF] RegEx Help
Chet Gardiner wrote: > A workaround is susceptible to debugging? :-) > Not exactly. If *I* do it, it's a workaround > > Paul Newton wrote: > >> Kenneth Kixmoeller/fh wrote: >> >> >>> On Jun 14, 2007, at 3:34 PM, Frank Burcaw wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> It works pretty good, but I realized that the user could enter a comma before the word INC, LLC, CORP etc, like "ROBERT JONES, LLC". >>> Just a workaround, but why don't you take the comma out of the string >>> when it contains "INC, LLC, CORP etc," before you process it with >>> your regex statement? >>> >>> >>> >> That reminds me ... what is the difference between a workaround and a >> kludge ? >> >> >> [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [NF] RegEx Help
A workaround is susceptible to debugging? :-) Paul Newton wrote: > Kenneth Kixmoeller/fh wrote: > >> On Jun 14, 2007, at 3:34 PM, Frank Burcaw wrote: >> >> >> >>> It works pretty good, but I realized that the user could enter a >>> comma before the word INC, LLC, CORP etc, like "ROBERT JONES, LLC". >>> >>> >> Just a workaround, but why don't you take the comma out of the string >> when it contains "INC, LLC, CORP etc," before you process it with >> your regex statement? >> >> > > That reminds me ... what is the difference between a workaround and a > kludge ? > > [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [NF] RegEx Help
Kenneth Kixmoeller/fh wrote: > On Jun 14, 2007, at 3:34 PM, Frank Burcaw wrote: > > >> It works pretty good, but I realized that the user could enter a >> comma before the word INC, LLC, CORP etc, like "ROBERT JONES, LLC". >> > > Just a workaround, but why don't you take the comma out of the string > when it contains "INC, LLC, CORP etc," before you process it with > your regex statement? > That reminds me ... what is the difference between a workaround and a kludge ? > [excessive quoting removed by server] ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Re: [NF] RegEx Help
On Jun 14, 2007, at 3:34 PM, Frank Burcaw wrote: > > It works pretty good, but I realized that the user could enter a > comma before the word INC, LLC, CORP etc, like "ROBERT JONES, LLC". Just a workaround, but why don't you take the comma out of the string when it contains "INC, LLC, CORP etc," before you process it with your regex statement? ___ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
