2 ms·
> Why not also allow for, say, match anything except the following _two_ characters in a row? That part could be useful, but not when the pattern matches a see
by recursive 6y ago
> Why not also allow for, say, match anything except the following _two_ characters in a row?
That part could be useful, but not when the pattern matches a seemingly random number of characters in the process.
[^x] is more predictable. It matches a single character, or not at all.
- kleiba 6y agoThat part could be useful [...] Well, then by application of your name, it should be useful for any number of characters. They're not random -- they spell out a word you would like not to match. I'm not sure what you mean with "predictable". Are you referring to readability of the expression? I totally give you that... which kinda was my whole argument to begin with.
- recursive 6y agoAny substring of a shorter length than the no-no word spells out a word which doesn't match it. My opening statement was that I can't see a practical use for it. I still can't. Maybe one exists. But I don't think we're getting anywhere.