--- In

ntb-clips@yahoogroups.com, "janderri" <jan_derrick@...> wrote:

>

> --- In ntb-clips@yahoogroups.com, Axel Berger <Axel-Berger@> wrote:

> >

> > Flo wrote:

> > > "^(.+\t.+?),"

> >

> > A question, as I have never yet used such a complicated term

inside one

> > pair of parentheses:

> > What does the non greedy specifier apply to there exactly and would it

> > make any sense to write (.+?\t.+?) instead? We were never told if

there

> > could be preexisting tabs anywhere in the source lines.

> >

> > Danke

> > Axel

> >

>

>

> I think we can conclude this with :

>

> Regular expressions in NoteTab are a mess + we can't even trust them

to work correctly too.

That's a strange conclusion to reach as a result of this thread...

It is true that the regular expression given here was written making

an assumption that the only tab at the beginning of the data is the

one that was just inserted by replacing the previous ",". However,

that doesn't mean that regular expressions are a mess, or don't

work... it just means there was a poor assumption made in constructing

this one.

Thing is, regular expressions are used to tackle problems that are

hard to solve in other ways, and that doesn't mean those problems are

easily solved using regular expressions, either... but often they are

solvable.

While there are many smart people contributing to this forum, many of

the problems they are attempting to help with are poorly specified.

Even this regular expression is correct, if the assumption made

actually holds; it is unfortunate that assumptions like that sneak in

without being stated... that's a problem with assumptions in general,

though, not just ones regarding regular expressions.