Interesting I didn't realize that. But then it's not really a 'regular' expression then. They should call it a 'limited-context-free' expression... Kaiting. On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 2:21 PM, C Anthony Risinger <anthony@xxxxxxxx>wrote: > On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 1:14 PM, Pierre Chapuis <catwell@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > > > "Andre "Osku" Schmidt" <andre.osku.schmidt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit : > > > >>> A regular > >>> expression will never be able to parse that.because it can never decide > >>> which brace is the final one. This might be better explained here. > >>> > >>> > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/133601/can-regular-expressions-be-used-to-match-nested-patterns > >> > >>thank you. i'll continue my journey on parsing this another way. > > > > Actually if you read the page linked above completely you will notice > that it says that you can. Regexps like POSIX that use finite automata can't > but PCRE (that are everywhere) can, at least recent versions. That's also > why they are slower. > > yes via a "recursive" expression. another option would be to use a > multipass setup (i havent looked at the OP's code) to break the > problem into smaller chunks instead of trying to to it all in one > expression (i.e. use an expression to count the braces/etc. and build > another expression dynamically based off the results of the first) > -- Kiwis and Limes: http://kaitocracy.blogspot.com/
