>> > I'm not sure what you mean by your question. Rewrite
>> > their
>> > existing expressions from what? Perl? Maybe. The new
>> > syntax is very Perl-like.
>>
>> I meant from CF 5 and earlier ... the "greedy" regex ...
>
> Greedy is the base for all RegEx.
Oh okay, thanks for the clarification.
> > I'm not sure what you mean by your question. Rewrite their
> > existing expressions from what? Perl? Maybe. The new
> > syntax is very Perl-like.
>
> I meant from CF 5 and earlier ... the "greedy" regex ...
Greedy is the base for all RegEx.
> > --
> > The ? is a new 'command' in MX Reg
> I'm not sure what you mean by your question. Rewrite their
> existing expressions from what? Perl? Maybe. The new
> syntax is very Perl-like.
I meant from CF 5 and earlier ... the "greedy" regex ...
> --
> The ? is a new 'command' in MX RegEx that tells the
> previous special character to
> Nope. We're running CF 5 here. After working in Perl for
> years, I'll freely admit (gripe? yell? complain bitterly?)
> that the CF 5 regexps don't quite stack up. Is the CFMX RexEx
> parser any better?
>
> Not that that'd convince my boss to upgrade. If it ain't
> broke, don't fix it, I
> Nope. We're running CF 5 here. After working in Perl for years, I'll
> freely admit (gripe? yell? complain bitterly?) that the CF
> 5 regexps don't
> quite stack up. Is the CFMX RexEx parser any better?
>
Much. It's very close to be being 100% compat with Perl.
=
CF RegEx has been greedy from day 1. The new ? addition gives the option for stingy
matches.
> : Is the ? in that string part of an attempt on MM's part to not make people
> : have to rewrite their existing expressions, or is that just the way it
> : works?
>
> Hmm. That's the way it works in
: Have you played with the MX RegEx any?
Nope. We're running CF 5 here. After working in Perl for years, I'll
freely admit (gripe? yell? complain bitterly?) that the CF 5 regexps don't
quite stack up. Is the CFMX RexEx parser any better?
Not that that'd convince my boss to upgrade. If it a
> "Ben is [a-zA-Z ]*?\."
: > would work in MX. Note the ? after the asterisk. it says get all of a-z
: > but only as many as needed to fulfill the requirements. Be
: stingy. But its
: > still doing more comparisons. If the character an a? a b? a c? etc.
:
: Is the ? in that string part of an attem
I'm not sure what you mean by your question. Rewrite their existing expressions from
what? Perl? Maybe. The new syntax is very Perl-like.
--
The ? is a new 'command' in MX RegEx that tells the previous special character to only
operate as many times as needed but not more. For example,
str
> Ben is forgetting that CF 5 and earlier RegEx are greedy and his example
> will get a lot more than just from "Ben" to the period. It'll get from
> "Ben" to the last period on the page or string. This would work better in
> CF5 and earlier
> "Ben is [^.]*\.
> Note that there's really just one t
Have you played with the MX RegEx any?
> : Ben is forgetting that CF 5 and earlier RegEx are greedy and his
> : example will get a lot more than just from "Ben" to the period.
> : It'll get from "Ben" to the last period on the page or string.
> : This would work better in CF5 and earlier
> : "B
: Ben is forgetting that CF 5 and earlier RegEx are greedy and his
: example will get a lot more than just from "Ben" to the period.
: It'll get from "Ben" to the last period on the page or string.
: This would work better in CF5 and earlier
: "Ben is [^.]*\.
: Note that there's really just one ty
Wednesday, July 10, 2002 9:36 AM
Subject: RE: Regular Expressions/Speed
> Disclaimer: I learned on Perl, so every once in a while, my syntax gets
> garbled between Perl and CF. Either forgive me or ignore me.
>
> There are one or two things you can do to optimize regexps in gen
Ben is forgetting that CF 5 and earlier RegEx are greedy and his example will get a
lot more than just from "Ben" to the period. It'll get from "Ben" to the last period
on the page or string. This would work better in CF5 and earlier
"Ben is [^.]*\.
Note that there's really just one type of com
Disclaimer: I learned on Perl, so every once in a while, my syntax gets
garbled between Perl and CF. Either forgive me or ignore me.
There are one or two things you can do to optimize regexps in general.
First, maximize the length of any mandatory fixed string. That is, if you
know a substrin
> Oops. Gulp. (And other sounds of cringing terror.)
> Er...what's a regex library?
You're using the default regex library that's native to whatever version of
CF you're using... I've heard that the regex libraries in cfmx are better --
not having the 2000 character limitation and possibly fast
Oops. Gulp. (And other sounds of cringing terror.) Er...what's a regex
library?
Matthieu
-Original Message-
From: Alex [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 9:55 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Regular Expressions/Speed
What regex library are you using? That&
What regex library are you using? That's the defining factor --the parser.
Just like xml parsers are different so are regex libs/utilities.
On Tue, 9 Jul 2002, Cornillon, Matthieu wrote:
> Does anyone have anything concrete to say about the speed of searching using
> regular expressions? Are gi
18 matches
Mail list logo
