Regex plugin pet-hate

I have a new minor pet-hate with the regex plugin.

When selecting the "copy regex to java string" option, the pasted string
ALWAYS includes a carriage return, so I end up having to manually
backspace/del it to get my code on the same line again.

Mark

3 comments
Comment actions Permalink

This is with a single line regex I take it? I tend to end out with
multi line ones and so hadn't noticed this. It's easy enough to fix,
I'll see to it.

Guy

Mark Derricutt wrote:

I have a new minor pet-hate with the regex plugin.

When selecting the "copy regex to java string" option, the pasted string
ALWAYS includes a carriage return, so I end up having to manually
backspace/del it to get my code on the same line again.

Mark

0
Comment actions Permalink

Guy Gascoigne-Piggford wrote:

This is with a single line regex I take it? I tend to end out with
multi line ones and so hadn't noticed this. It's easy enough to fix,
I'll see to it.


Single liners yeh... Havn't really had the need to tackle a multiliner
yet ( thank god ).

--
Discouragement is a dissatisfaction with the past, a distaste for the
present, and a distrust of the future - Maree De Jong, CLCA.

Mark Derricutt --- mark@ talios.com --- http://www.talios.com

0
Comment actions Permalink

To be honest there isn't anything that you actually NEED the multiline
pattern for. It's exactly the same syntax but it allows you to add
comments in the expression, I tend to find that something like this:

"(?: \n" +
" # First look for a non-escaped quote character \n" +
" (?:(?<!

)\") \n" +
" # Then look for the string contents \n" +
" (.*?) \n" +
" # Finish with a closing non-escaped quote \n" +
" (?:(?<!

)\") \n" +
" # The allow this sequence to be repeated with plus \n" +
" # signs joining the strings \n" +
" (?:
s*
+
s) \n" +
") \n",

(which looks for multi-line strings and is used in the regex tool to
convert from a java string when pasting from the clipboard) is much
easier to read when I come back to it after a few months than this:

"(?:(?:(?<!

)\")(.?)(?:(?<!

)\")(?:
s

+
s))"

which does the same thing and is more compact.

So basically it's a matter of taste :)

Guy

Mark Derricutt wrote:

Guy Gascoigne-Piggford wrote:

>> This is with a single line regex I take it? I tend to end out with
>> multi line ones and so hadn't noticed this. It's easy enough to fix,
>> I'll see to it.


Single liners yeh... Havn't really had the need to tackle a multiliner
yet ( thank god ).

0

Please sign in to leave a comment.