Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 05:32:09 +0000
Reply-To: toby dunn <tobydunn@HOTMAIL.COM>
Sender: "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From: toby dunn <tobydunn@HOTMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: Is there an easier way to solve this?
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Its precisely the tack I have andam currently takeing in understanding RegEx's myself.
Syntactically its pretty easy to learn what metacharacters and metasymbols mean and do.
Its harder to learn how to use these effectively until you start reallly thinking about how the
match will be performed with the combination of the afore mentioned metacharacters and
metasymbols. That has been the chore for me, but a little digging, a lot of reading and rereading,
some hard thinking, and a we bit of luck in finding some good articles on specific subjects
I have started to really think about them in a whole new light.
"I'm a hell bent 100% Texan til I die"
"Don't touch my Willie, I don't know you that well"
> Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 23:27:20 -0500
> From: art297@ROGERS.COM
> Subject: Re: Is there an easier way to solve this?
> To: SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
> You got, but also missed the point. Yes, I personally found many of your
> questions too simple for the list, and think one could answer many of them
> with a little research. However, that is probably exactly the level of
> questions that HAVE to be asked if more of us are finally going to learn
> more about regular expressions.
> In short, keep up the good work .. especially if you are going to ask about
> regular expressions.
> On Tue, 28 Dec 2010 22:12:56 -0500, bbser 2009 <bbser2009@GMAIL.COM> wrote:
> >Thanks for your comments.
> >I agree with you. Saren or Lassen's code looks fancy to me, it is also
> >direct and more flexible.
> >If we wanted more words out of a string, my code would require more
> >invocations of functions,
> >which I guess would take much more time than Lassen's.
> >I like my code to be criticized, which was why I sent out the codes in the
> >first place for comments and which helped me learn a lot.
> >BTW, I also noticed your another email which mentioned my way asking many
> >regular questions. If that is not what this list expects, I apologize to
> >this list for that. I guess I misunderstood something and thought this was
> >one of those lists where people could throw any questions for quick
> >Anyway, I will think about a question more carefully before posting it
> >On the other hand, this does give me a pressure about posting the
> >questions in future. But I guess I'll adjust.
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Arthur Tabachneck [mailto:art297@ROGERS.COM]
> >Sent: December-28-10 6:07 PM
> >To: SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU; Bbser 2009
> >Subject: Re: Is there an easier way to solve this?
> >I've been thinking about Toby's comment and, as a result, think I really
> >should point something out.
> >Many of us (well, I definitely) learned a couple of new things from this
> >thread, as I have from most of the threads I've participated in over the
> >years. I initially liked your first suggestion but, as Toby mentioned, it
> >is limited. The other suggestions would work regardless of the number of
> >spaces that exist between state and zipcode, while yours will fail unless
> >there is exactly one space between the two. Yes, if everything is aligned
> >perfectly it will run the quickest. But, if they aren't, it will still run
> >the quickest, but not provide the desired result.
> >In the future others will search for and find our posts, and attempt to
> >incorporate the ideas to solve their own problems.
> >I think that one of the things that Toby was trying to say was that we
> >really ought to make more of an effort ensuring that we've criticized any
> >suggested code that doesn't appear to be sufficiently generalizable.
> >Just some random thoughts,