Re: regular expression question

Scott Nicol <snicol@apk.net>
10 Jun 2005 22:13:58 -0400

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
[2 earlier articles]
Re: regular expression question 148f3wg02@sneakemail.com (Karsten Nyblad) (2005-06-08)
Re: regular expression question daw@taverner.cs.berkeley.edu (2005-06-08)
Re: regular expression question gvheurn@gmail.com (Gijs) (2005-06-09)
Re: regular expression question nicola.musatti@gmail.com (Nicola Musatti) (2005-06-09)
Re: regular expression question cfc@shell01.TheWorld.com (Chris F Clark) (2005-06-09)
Re: regular expression question snicol@apk.net (Scott Nicol) (2005-06-10)
Re: regular expression question snicol@apk.net (Scott Nicol) (2005-06-10)
Re: regular expression question d148f3wg02@sneakemail.com (Karsten Nyblad) (2005-06-10)
Re: regular expression question torbenm@diku.dk (2005-06-10)
Re: regular expression question skandgoe@gwdg.de (Skandinavisches Seminar) (2005-06-10)
Re: regular expression question mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de (Dmitry A. Kazakov) (2005-06-12)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: Scott Nicol <snicol@apk.net>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 10 Jun 2005 22:13:58 -0400
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 05-06-04505-06-050 05-06-053
Keywords: lex
Posted-Date: 10 Jun 2005 22:13:58 EDT

Gijs wrote:
> So I was hoping to easily invert a RE. But now I think I'll get a
> rather complex RE, which I think the database field is too small
> for. ;-)


How about defining a special flag as the first character of the RE, like
perhaps '!'. Then you can just pull it off before calling regcomp() and
negate the return value of regexec().


--
Scott Nicol
snicol@apk.net


Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.