3 ms·

I don't know about the lisp code (where you use \w), but \\w matches a backslash and a w, as the first \ escapes the second. I wasn't saying you were using PHP

I don't know about the lisp code (where you use \w), but \\w matches a backslash and a w, as the first \ escapes the second. I wasn't saying you were using PHP, but I know the PHP docs were confusing on how to escape things because backslash is overloaded for string escaping and for regular expression escaping and character classes. I can't see how a more complete (complex?) correct regular expression would produce MORE noise in your output. The very fact that you allow the empty string on the LHS means that you risk getting invalid addresses. Continue to use that busted regular expression for parsing email addresses out of these 30,000 HTML files and please remove all my email addresses from the list you generate while you're at it.

hs 18y ago
don't worry, the htmls are ads pages where people deliberately put phone and email to contact to (public info) the correct regex can indeed produce noise, consider this string in an ads where the poster uses '+' to join info: "please contact the owner, her info: 4041234567+owner@gmail.com ... thx!" the correct 'boilerplate' regex will happily take 4041234567+owner@gmail.com ... which is not what i want; thus, noise the less pedantic regex i use will just take owner@gmail.com, which is what i want similarly with "?" char (legal for local part), the correct regex will catch "sendIM?owner@gmail.com"; which again, not what i want ... the 'busted' regex will only take 'owner@gmail.com' ... which is what i want that's the main reason the omissions of +,? and other legal chars in local part of my email regex, the second reason is speed for email validation where what u get is just a string of less than 100 chars, it's fine to use complete email validation regex; however, for email scrapping of close to 1gb data, boilerplate won't cut it i'm willing to sacrifice completeness for speed my regex doesn't allow empty string, there's metachar '\s' for spaces, equivalent to [^ \t\n] and i was wrong, '\w' is [^a-zA-Z0-9_] ... i forgot '^' and '_' are included in metachar '\w' thx, your criticism forced me to reopen my regex book

hs 18y ago

don't worry, the htmls are ads pages where people deliberately put phone and email to contact to (public info) the correct regex can indeed produce noise, consider this string in an ads where the poster uses '+' to join info: "please contact the owner, her info: 4041234567+owner@gmail.com ... thx!" the correct 'boilerplate' regex will happily take 4041234567+owner@gmail.com ... which is not what i want; thus, noise the less pedantic regex i use will just take owner@gmail.com, which is what i want similarly with "?" char (legal for local part), the correct regex will catch "sendIM?owner@gmail.com"; which again, not what i want ... the 'busted' regex will only take 'owner@gmail.com' ... which is what i want that's the main reason the omissions of +,? and other legal chars in local part of my email regex, the second reason is speed for email validation where what u get is just a string of less than 100 chars, it's fine to use complete email validation regex; however, for email scrapping of close to 1gb data, boilerplate won't cut it i'm willing to sacrifice completeness for speed my regex doesn't allow empty string, there's metachar '\s' for spaces, equivalent to [^ \t\n] and i was wrong, '\w' is [^a-zA-Z0-9_] ... i forgot '^' and '_' are included in metachar '\w' thx, your criticism forced me to reopen my regex book