Re: regex - should be simple
- From: "Oliver Sturm" <oliver@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 19:47:02 +0100
David Browne wrote:
You need to restrict what's matched by the first group, then things should work. Like this:
([^;]*);(.*)
(.*?);(.*)
already does this.
I know that. But the OP was stating it didn't work for him, so I thought I'd just suggest an alternative - one that I actually like to use because it specifies more cleary how the match works, thereby making it more readable.
But you're right, that expression, which the OP also gave, should really work with the sample string given.
Oliver Sturm -- Expert programming and consulting services available See http://www.sturmnet.org (try /blog as well) .
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: regex - should be simple
- From: lit
- Re: regex - should be simple
- References:
- regex - should be simple
- From: lit
- Re: regex - should be simple
- From: Oliver Sturm
- Re: regex - should be simple
- From: David Browne
- regex - should be simple
- Prev by Date: Re: .NET SUCKS --- READ FOLLOWING. MICROSOFT IS A SUCKY CO
- Next by Date: Re: regex - should be simple
- Previous by thread: Re: regex - should be simple
- Next by thread: Re: regex - should be simple
- Index(es):