(Useful) Stupid Regex Tricks? 516
careysb writes to mention that in the same vein as '*nix tricks' and 'VIM tricks', it would be nice to see one on regular expressions and the programs that use them. What amazingly cool tricks have people discovered with respect to regular expressions in everyday life as a developer or power user?"
IP and Hardware addresses (Score:5, Insightful)
And this one for mac addresses
Re: (Score:3)
Re:IP and Hardware addresses (Score:4, Informative)
According to the RFC leading zeros specify octal and 0x is hexadecimal. Both are standard, but rarely used and not all programs support them. There are even more ways to write an IP address, including dword and different mixes, but they are usually only used for obfuscation in malware.
Re:IP and Hardware addresses (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh, wow, you are right. Using 0177.0.0.1 in firefox gets you to localhost, as does 0x7f.0.0.1
Nice catch.
Re:IP and Hardware addresses (Score:4, Funny)
So, would anyone like to buy my new T-shirt, it says "There is no place like 2130706433."
Re:IP and Hardware addresses (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:IP and Hardware addresses (Score:4, Insightful)
If you mean "Is it an address that you can send IP traffic to?", then the answer is no. If you mean "Is it a valid value that can end up in an IP address field (e.g., in the response to the ipconfig command)?" then the answer is yes - it means that you've not got a connection.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
i.e: starting a development server for a django [djangopowered.com] app on all interfaces (instead of the default 127.0.0.1)
python manage.py -runserver 0.0.0.0:8000
Re:IP and Hardware addresses (Score:4, Insightful)
Why isn't 0.0.0.0 or 10.* a valid IP address? Since when is the definition of IP address to be unicast and globally routable?
I'd rather take issue with the fact it completely fails on IPv6 addresses.
Re:IP and Hardware addresses (Score:5, Informative)
Of course, you can do better still. For mac addresses, try:
^([[:xdigit:]]{2}:){5}[[:xdigit:]]{2}$
[:xdigit:] is short for hexadecimal digits, i.e. a-fA-F0-9
We can also loop 5 times over the 'XX:' sections.
Re:IP and Hardware addresses (Score:5, Funny)
Re:IP and Hardware addresses (Score:5, Funny)
Re:IP and Hardware addresses (Score:5, Interesting)
There's a really cool little "real time" regex analyzer written in Flex: (if you're not one of them scared to death by Flash content)
http://gskinner.com/RegExr/ [gskinner.com]
Maybe you can monkey your way into "regexing" the a out of apple :p
Re:IP and Hardware addresses (Score:5, Informative)
I personally like the regex-builder mode in Emacs as well. This one allows you to build a regexp while highlighting all matches in the current buffer.
Of course, this should probably have been posted in the emacs thread earlier, but I think it is probably a good match for this thread as well :)
To start it, just use M-x regexp-builder
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Folks who think a low ID means a old person: get real. Slashdot hasn't been around forever. It started in 1997. Accounts were added later.
Folks with a low ID just happened to register within the few months following the addition of accounts. Must have been 1998 or 1999. I was in college at the time. I'm currently not yet 30 years old. Is that old to you?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You think THAT'S cool? I've seen CMDRTACO posting! Now that was a sight to behold. Actually I think I even saw a -1 once, which was his mom.
Re:IP and Hardware addresses (Score:4, Funny)
Hmmm... until recently I didn't even realize that low ID's were in vogue :)
Re:IP and Hardware addresses (Score:4, Funny)
You must be new h... (looks at PP's ID, gasps)
Nevermind.
Re:IP and Hardware addresses (Score:5, Funny)
Low ID = old fart. He may be a regexp wizard, but he probably looks like gandalf too
Re:IP and Hardware addresses (Score:5, Informative)
For pretty much any useful stock problem solved by regular expressions, see Perl's Regex::Common [cpan.org] module. A lot of these patterns are fiendishly complicated to deal with edge-cases properly.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes:
http://search.cpan.org/~abigail/Regexp-Common-2.122/lib/Regexp/Common/profanity.pm [cpan.org]
Re: (Score:2)
^((25[0-5]|2[0-4][0-9]|1[0-9][0-9]|[1-9][0-9]|[0-9])\.){3}(25[0-5]|2[0-4][0-9]|1[0-9][0-9]|[1-9][0-9]|[0-9])$
I'm not sure this is valid --- it doesn't accept non-dotted IP addresses, does it? i.e. expressing 127.0.0.1 as 2130706433. (Or 127.1, but which is equally, and surprisingly, valid.)
Re:IP and Hardware addresses (Score:4, Informative)
/^((25[0-5]|2[0-4][0-9]|1[0-9][0-9]|[1-9][0-9]|[0-9])\.){3}(25[0-5]|2[0-4][0-9]|1[0-9][0-9]|[1-9][0-9]|[0-9])$/
Try this: /^((25[0-5]|(2[0-4]|1[0-9]|[1-9]|)[0-9])(\.|$)){4}/
And similarly: /^(([0-9a-fA-F]{2})(:|$)){6}$/
(term(delimiter|$)){n} is the generic stupid regex trick here. Works in perl, ymmv elsewhere.
-Baz
Re:IP and Hardware addresses (Score:5, Funny)
That last bit is the perlre for a zero-width negative look-behind assertion
It certainly looks like English, but I have no idea what that means. Whatever it is, it sure seems to help cure insomnia.
Re:IP and Hardware addresses (Score:4, Funny)
Unless you know you're going to be dealing with numeric IPv4 addresses in a specific format, it would be best to pass them to getaddrinfo() (with AI_NUMERICHOST if you want to avoid DNS) and let somebody else worry about validating them properly.
(Useful) Stupid useless articles (Score:3, Insightful)
Dear slashdot editors,
slashdot.org is not stackoverflow.com [stackoverflow.com].
The articles and discussions here are not searchable in a sane way. Your recent attempts to mimic stackoverflow are just a waste of everybody's time because all those little tidbits that people post get lost in the internet noise immediately.
We know you're bit desperate [alexa.com] for traffic these days. But this is not the way to go.
Opposite (Score:4, Insightful)
IMHO, this is exactly the way that Slashdot should be going. Threads like this are interesting, add to the reservoirs of internet knowledge, and have the highest quality to noise ratios.
I (and I suspect many others) read Slashdot not for the latest +5 funny comment (though those can be fun to read) but to read the opinions of brilliant minds. And when those minds start trading secrets... Everyone wins.
Here's One for Slashdot Stories! (Score:4, Funny)
Yes sir, that will guarantee a front page story. You better head back to the drawing board if it doesn't fit that pattern. Next week: (Useful) Stupid Starcraft Tricks.
Re:Here's One for Slashdot Stories! (Score:5, Funny)
Next week: (Useful) Stupid Starcraft Tricks.
You can assign a building, building add-on, or a group of up to 12 units to a single key. To do this, select what you want to assign, then hold down Control and select a number on the keyboard between 0-9. Then, when you want to select what you assigned, simply press the number of the group that you want. Pressing a group number twice will center the screen on the group.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Did you get that from the tips that pop up every game when you first install StarCraft?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
On fastest:
Stasis your oponents' fleet with your arbiter and start a 15 second countdown. On zero, your teammate nukes the stasis. Wait 30 seconds for the nuke to come down right on your open-mouthed oponents' fleet.
To add insult to injury, if you manage to stasis both their and your ships, you can recall them out right before the nuke hits.
Re:Here's One for Slashdot Stories! (Score:5, Funny)
That doesn't look right...
Try:
Also, I noticed that the previous stupid tricks stories ended with a question mark, but this one doesn't. So:
Blasphemy (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You can permanently cloak zerg units that can burrow if you control an arbiter. By burrowing the zerg unit just as it enters the arbiter's cloaking field radius, the zerg will become permanently cloaked.
New Slashot Section (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe we should have a new section for "Useful Stupid Tricks" on Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
End it all... (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
That didn't do anything...All I got was:
tcl>format C:*.*
C:*.*
ARGH!!!! (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So clearly, Slashdot's shit never stank?
No, seriously, why the bitching? Did you expect the site to just keep reporting dry stories about incremental Linux kernel upgrades for its entire existence? You expected a website to never change and never update with the times? Just because it's old doesn't mean it's sacred.
Regex Support (Score:2, Interesting)
How about (Score:4, Funny)
Stupid (Useful) Ask Slashdot tricks?
I'm not sure whether these are legitimate, or just a "I don't know what the hell I'm doing, so let's see if I can get someone else to show me how to do my job, under the guise of sharing information."
I'd like to say the former, but my cynicism is making me lean to the latter.....
Re:How about (Score:5, Interesting)
I actually like these. Nice little highly enriched concentrations of geekery on a single page. Think how long it might take to round up the sort of stuff that appears here by Googling.
Turing word: insipid
In a sentence: You find this page insipid but I find it inspiring.
Re: (Score:2)
You're probably right. And there are certainly some useful nuggets on these pages, but I wouldn't be Googling for regex's anyway. That's the kind of stuff I'd write from scratch, because I want to be sure of what it does.
Maybe I'm weird that way, but I don't often take complex programming code and just copy/paste from Google. I don't trust the Internet that much.
Although that could be because I'm also a musician, and Googling lyrics/chords, etc for songs inevitably leads to some stuff where you think "Wa
Re:How about (Score:5, Interesting)
I like it, but I've got a bookmark folder called "Slash-doc" where I store useful threads that contain a lot of information.
I've got a lot of threads bookmarked.
Best Practices for Process Documentation [slashdot.org]
How would you make a distributed Office system [slashdot.org]
Quality Open Source / Calendar / Messaging Systems [slashdot.org]
and some others.
Some of the information in the threads is out of date, but the ideas are useful and interesting to read. I need to go back through Ask Slashdot and get the more recent threads that seem to act as references
news for nerds. NERDS (Score:3, Informative)
stuff that matters
understand the concept?
if not, try going to this site [tmz.com], it looks like it might be more your speed
buhbye
Regexp-based address validation (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Regexp-based address validation (Score:5, Funny)
Best part of that Regex? It's easy to modify too!
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I matches the entire RFC, not just the you@slashie.com .
<You @ Slashie> you@slashie.com
Should be valid if I remember correctly.
Re:Regexp-based address validation (Score:5, Insightful)
The regex is beautiful in the sense that it lets you not be one of those assholes who refuses valid email addresses.
Mainframe Formatting (Score:2)
I use this to remove formatting that is included in the reports spit out from the mainframe -
cat REPORT_NAME | sed 's/[^a-z0-9,.-]//gi' > REPORT.out
It uses a few commands to accomplish this but I figured I would include the entire command line for completeness. It keeps all letters, numbers, ',', '.', and '-'. If you need other characters you can always add them to the regular expression.
Re:Mainframe Formatting (Score:4, Insightful)
Windows (Score:4, Informative)
Link to and excel
Don't forget to add the lib {tools->References->MS VBA Scrip regexp 5.5}
http://www.tmehta.com/regexp/using_functions.htm [tmehta.com]
is it an rfc-822 compliant e-mail address? (Score:3, Interesting)
please validate using the rfc and not your sketchy interpretation of an e-mail address. /.*@.*\..*/ will not cut it.
Try instead
([^\\x00-\\x20\\x22\\x28\\x29\\x2c\\x2e\\x3a-\\x3c\\x3e\\x40\\x5b-\\x5d\\x7f-\\xff]+|\\x22([^\\x0d\\x22\\x5c\\x80-\\xff]|\\x5c[\\x00-\\x7f])*\\x22)(\\x2e([^\\x00-\\x20\\x22\\x28\\x29\\x2c\\x2e\\x3a-\\x3c\\x3e\\x40\\x5b-\\x5d\\x7f-\\xff]+|\\x22([^\\x0d\\x22\\x5c\\x80-\\xff]|\\x5c\\x00-\\x7f)*\\x22))*\\x40([^\\x00-\\x20\\x22\\x28\\x29\\x2c\\x2e\\x3a-\\x3c\\x3e\\x40\\x5b-\\x5d\\x7f-\\xff]+|\\x5b([^\\x0d\\x5b-\\x5d\\x80-\\xff]|\\x5c[\\x00-\\x7f])*\\x5d)(\\x2e([^\\x00-\\x20\\x22\\x28\\x29\\x2c\\x2e\\x3a-\\x3c\\x3e\\x40\\x5b-\\x5d\\x7f-\\xff]+|\\x5b([^\\x0d\\x5b-\\x5d\\x80-\\xff]|\\x5c[\\x00-\\x7f])*\\x5d))*
See the original at http://www.iamcal.com/publish/articles/php/parsing_email/
Re:is it an rfc-822 compliant e-mail address? (Score:4, Insightful)
Mmmmm readable.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Does that thing allow nested comments, and escaping inside them? It doesn't look like it, it isn't recursive. (I have some in the email address I typically put online, ais523(524\)(525)x)@bham.ac.uk; that could be a good test for your email client, and is useful because I've never come across a spambot that can parse it.)
Recent versions of Perl and Python regices allow you to write recursively; that probably qualifies as a stupid regex trick, especially as it makes them more computationally powerful so t
Re:is it an rfc-822 compliant e-mail address? (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem is that email addresses are not suitable for regex based validation.
There are too many legacy formats, too many variations, that are legal addresses.
Why, back in the old days, you could send mail to things like "bob%example.com@example.org" which would shoot the email off to example.org, who's mail server would then shoot the email off to example.com. A way to hand route your email around a broken network link in the old days. Throw in a few UUCP hops, maybe getting final delivery to a BITNET connected system. Ah, those were the days!
99 Bottles of Beer on the wall (Score:3, Interesting)
http://search.cpan.org/dist/Acme-EyeDrops/lib/Acme/EyeDrops.pm#99_Bottles_of_Beer [cpan.org]
(I would quote the final result but
Re:99 Bottles of Beer on the wall (Score:5, Insightful)
(I would quote the final result but /. won't allow that many "junk" characters.. let's hope that doesn't cripple this entire discussion.)
Interesting that a site for nerds doesn't allow a lot of characters commonly used in source code.
Regex Bill (Score:5, Funny)
His mom wouldn't let him play with matches.
PCRE and perl 5.10 offer "tagged" captures (Score:2)
(?:<thing>foo)
Where you can then access the matched substring ("foo" in this case) by the tag/label "thing" (access syntax depends on language).
It's pretty spiffy if you need order independent matching.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, still here.
Re: (Score:2)
PS: I totally messed that up Should've been "Nope, still here".
Match a library call number (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's a chunk of perl script I wrote (years ago) that determines if $text matches any of the styles of library call number that I've ever encountered.
Slashcode is interestingly interpreting my formatting, but you should get the gist.
$text =~ /
^[A-Z]+ # starts with at least one capital letter
\s? # followed by an optional space
\d+ # followed by one or more digits
or $text =~ /
^\d+ # starts with one or more digits
\. # followed by a single decimal
or $text =~ /
\d+ # starts with one or more digits
\s # and a space
or $text =~ /
Thesis # starts with "Thesis"
\d{4} # then four numbers - year
\s+ # separated by at least one space
[A-Z]+ # from one or more capital letters
\d+ # followed by one or more numbers
or $text =~ /
\d+ # starts with one or more digits
\- # connected with a dash
\d+ # to one or more following digits
or $text =~ /
\d+ # starts with one or more digits
# followed by a space
[A-Z]* #followed by zero or more capital letters
\d+ # followed by one or more digits
Re:Match a library call number (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, not useful (Score:5, Funny)
But even an artist gets lazy sometimes.
CWEB and Doxygen (Score:2)
Here's one I came up with recently:
If you want to get documentation out of both CWEB and Doxygen, write the Doxygen comments in the source files like @=//! Comment for Doxygen.@> to prevent ctangle from stripping the comment out, then use sed 's/@=\/.*@>//g' input.w > output.w to strip those comments out so they don't end up in the output from cweave.
One regex to match them all (Score:5, Informative)
[-+]?(?:\b[0-9]+(?:\.[0-9]*)?|\.[0-9]+\b)(?:[eE][-+]?[0-9]+\b)?
use Regex::Common; (Score:5, Insightful)
$text_with_urls =~ m/$RE{URI}/;
$text_with_ips =~ m/$RE{net}{IPv4}/;
Remove trailing whitespace (Score:4, Interesting)
Do these questions really belong here? (Score:5, Informative)
I wonder why such FAQs are still posted on a site like Slashdot. We now have a great repository for exactly this kind of questions:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged?tagnames=regex&sort=votes&pagesize=15 [stackoverflow.com]
Not very complex, but ... (Score:2)
I often use sed to split a delimited line into multiple lines. E.g.:
RFC 822 email validation (Score:2, Informative)
Cal Henderson's routine is the best RFC compliant regex I have ever found to verify an email address:
http://code.iamcal.com/php/rfc822/ [iamcal.com]
Be lazy! (Score:5, Interesting)
OK, you asked for stupid tricks, but this one's just plain lazy.
Between bash and grep, there are quite a lot of special characters that you have to escape... Or just ignore with dots!
/I.do.this.frequently..(even.with.parenthases).,.because.sometimes.my....backslash..key.is.tired/
A couple neat things happened: The extra dot after frequently is matching an inline paren. The paren in the PATTERN right next to it starts the mark of an atom, closed by its brother. The comma is because I put one outside the paren (here represented as the dot to the left of the comma) as is my style. Also note the literal backslash, just before you see the word backslash in hidden parenthesis.
Why not add quotes to match the spaces easily? I get a word or two in, and I find I naturally switch to using dots. These are throwaways for single tries through grep. For production code, I hone in carefully on the parts that I'm dead sure I can anchor to, escaped by any means needed, before carefully choosing my atom to match as tightly as possible, so it'll error out if my data has gone wrong.
Even in a simple case like this, half the fun is in explaining it. :)
recursive regexp to match {} block (Score:4, Informative)
my $re = '';
$re = qr/
\{ (?:
(?> [^{}]+ ) # nao-chaves
|
(??{ $re }) # sub-bloco de chaves
)* \}
email validation... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:email validation... FAIL (Score:4, Insightful)
Your regex doesn't allow + signs in the name part.
Nor, I would suspect would it handle quoted strings e.g. "Jeremy P"@example.com is technically a valid RFC 822 address.
And having just looked up the RFC 5322 spec which you quote, I see there are more cases you fail to take acount of e.g.
Jeremy P <jeremyp@example.com>
Also, what makes you think upper case in domain names is invalid? jeremyp@example.COM fails validation.
some that I've used ... (Score:5, Interesting)
^(?!000)([0-6]\d{2}|7([0-6]\d|7[012]))([ -]?)(?!00)\d\d\3(?!0000)\d{4}$
US phone with or without parentheses
^\([0-9]{3}\)\s?[0-9]{3}(-|\s)?[0-9]{4}$|^[0-9]{3}-?[0-9]{3}-?[0-9]{4}$
ISO Date (19th to 21st century only)
^((18|19|20)\d\d)-(0[1-9]|1[012])-(0[1-9]|1[0-9]|2[0-9]|3[01])$
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
ISO Date (19th to 21st century only)
^((18|19|20)\d\d)-(0[1-9]|1[012])-(0[1-9]|1[0-9]|2[0-9]|3[01])$
This regexp is ISO certified. The certificate is valid until 2009-02-31.
Not a trick, but a question. (Score:3, Interesting)
I was wondering with my friend someday if it's possible with regex to select a pattern which occurs twice or more times repeatedly in single line but is separated by undefined characters. For example I want to select only lines in which the same pattern "[FB][ot]o" occurs exactly two times (in example below . is any character, for clarity):
...Foo... - is not selected
...Foo...Bto... - is not selected
...Bto...Bto... - is selected
a normal /[FB][ot]o.*[FB][ot]o/ would select the second and third case. But I only want the third case. The first occurrence would define my pattern, and second occurrence must exactly match it. Magic stuff like this is not working: /\([FB][ot]o\).*\1/ although that seems to be the closest description of what we wanted.
Re:Not a trick, but a question. (Score:4, Informative)
Magic stuff like this is not working: /\([FB][ot]o\).*\1/ although that seems to be the closest description of what we wanted.
In perl, I did /([FB][ot][o]).*\1/ and it seemed to work as you wanted. Also, if you're using a regex engine that supports lazy (non-greedy) quantifiers like perl does, I would use them in this case. It reduces backtracking. In perl, put a ? after the *.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In most regex engines, you should be able to do this with backreferences. I don't use them often, but I think something like this would work:
I think the reason the example you gave using \1 didn't work is because the .* was too greedy, and ate up the rest of the pattern before the \1 got a chance to match. Also, when you're doing full line matching, it's always good to think about ^/$ and whether you're using any multiline modifiers.
Handy links (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.regular-expressions.info/ [regular-expressions.info] - this one is handy for regex info particularly in Javascript which I use so infrequently I need to know how to match, capture, substitute, etc.
http://perldoc.perl.org/perlre.html [perl.org] - plenty of regex info there which is Perl specific, but of course extends to many other similar implementations
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I was recently trying to come up with a regex for some renaming file thingy recently, and I found I could easily state is pseudo-code what I wanted to do, but looking through and regex sites/tips/FAQs quickly went from "here's a very simple match test" to "going to the moon", with little in-between, which is what I was after.
However, I eventually found Reggy [apple.com] for OS X, a handy little tool for testing regexes, so all was not lost.
Validating credit card numbers (Score:3, Interesting)
Does anyone know if the Luhn Algorithm can be implemented in regex only?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luhn_algorithm [wikipedia.org]
(sorry if I double post this... I swear I posted it 10 minutes ago)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The simplest way to do it, of course, is to just list all valid Luhn Algorithm numbers. something like (.....384848583 | 938484845 | 8383838383......). Of course, this is probably not what you are looking for, because you will be listing a lot of numbers, and if your Luhn number is too big, then it won't be in your list.
So, as fo
Search through phone numbers (Score:5, Funny)
#$%^&*(&^%{{}}{/\/\||```
(No, that's not a regex at all. And no, I don't even have a single girlfriend.)
Useful parsing configs in bash (Score:3, Interesting)
I have to parse files with bash sometimes, and I use these:
^# = line with a leading comment
^$ = empty line
They're simple, but work usually. You can make them a lot more bullet proof by adding in blank checking between the characters, but it seems to work.
cat httpd.conf | grep -v \^\# | grep -v \^\$ | less
makes httpd.conf a lot more readable.
OK, I'll play... (Score:3, Informative)
Bad filename character for Windows (if it matches, the filename is invalid):
E-mail (use case insensitive):
GUID (use case insensitive):
IP on local private network:
Removes .NET named capture syntax so that a .NET Regex string can be used elsewhere (such as Javascript) (replace with nothing):
Flame away about how horrible it is that I missed some edge case that even nobody on Slashdot has ever heard of, but they work well for me and hopefully for you too.
Now, if you actually find a common case that I missed, I would appreciate the help...
valid utf-8 string (Score:3, Interesting)
/^(
[\x09\x0A\x0D\x20-\x7E] # ASCII
| [\xC2-\xDF][\x80-\xBF] # non-overlong 2-byte
| \xE0[\xA0-\xBF][\x80-\xBF] # excluding overlongs
| [\xE1-\xEC\xEE\xEF][\x80-\xBF]{2} # straight 3-byte
| \xED[\x80-\x9F][\x80-\xBF] # excluding surrogates
| \xF0[\x90-\xBF][\x80-\xBF]{2} # planes 1-3
| [\xF1-\xF3][\x80-\xBF]{3} # planes 4-15
| \xF4[\x80-\x8F][\x80-\xBF]{2} # plane 16
)*$/x
This can crash perl if the string being checked is too big.
So it's usually better to just let perl attempt to decode anything non-ascii as utf8 and see if it fails or not. (And hope all the utf8 parsing exploits have been fixed
eval { $param = decode( 'utf8', $param, Encode::FB_CROAK) if $param =~
$param = decode( 'iso-8859-1', $param, Encode::FB_CROAK) if $@; # utf8 decode of non-ascii text failed so treat as latin1
The most useful regex there is! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I was able to simplify your regex somewhat so that it still matches everything, but takes up half the space:
.
It must be said (Score:4, Funny)
Some people, when confronted with a problem, think "I know, I'll use regular expressions." Now they have two problems.
-- Jamie Zawinski
Just read this (Score:2, Informative)