4 ms·

Use \S which is the opposite set of \s which avoids eating word boundaries too. \b(dog\S)|(\Scat)\b You could also use a \B instead of a \S though there

by shagie 4y ago

Use \S which is the opposite set of \s which avoids eating word boundaries too. \b(dog\S*)|(\S*cat)\b You could also use a \B instead of a \S though there are different meanings there.

codetrotter 4y ago
It almost does the trick https://regex101.com/r/sbpy8s/1 https://regex101.com/r/sbpy8s/1 But this matches for example dog.cat as one single word. But I would like that it matches separately dog and cat in this case. Likewise, I’d want for example dogapple-bananacat to be matched as two separate words dogapple and bananacat After a bit more reading online I thought that maybe the following regex would do what I want: \b(dog\p{L}*)|(\p{L}*cat)\b https://regex101.com/r/1NT5Ie/1 https://regex101.com/r/1NT5Ie/1 But that does not match dog42 as a word. What I want is a way to include everything after dog that is not \b And likewise everything preceding cat that is not \b Edit: I think I’ve found it after reading https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4541573/what-are-non-word-boundary-in-regex-b-compared-to-word-boundary https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4541573/what-are-non-wor... (\bdog\w*)|(\w*cat\b) Seems to behave exactly like I want. https://regex101.com/r/f3uJUE/1 https://regex101.com/r/f3uJUE/1
- btown 4y ago
  After all, who needs wget when you have \wcat!
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- KronisLV 4y ago
  Out of curiosity: if humans have trouble coming up with anything non-trivial, like regexes, why should something that has been trained on the output of humans do much better? To me it feels like if 90% of $TASK content out there would be bad and people would struggle with it, then the AI-genrated $TASK output would be similarly flawed, be it regarding a programming language or something else. As a silly example, consider how much bad legacy PHP code is out there and what the answers to some PHP questions could become because of that. But it's still possible to get answers to simplistic problems reasonably fast, or at least get workable examples to then test and iterate upon, which can easily save some time.

Use \S which is the opposite set of \s which avoids eating word boundaries too. \b(dog\S*)|(\S*cat)\b You could also use a \B instead of a \S though there

by shagie 4y ago

Use \S which is the opposite set of \s which avoids eating word boundaries too. \b(dog\S*)|(\S*cat)\b You could also use a \B instead of a \S though there are different meanings there.

codetrotter 4y ago

It almost does the trick https://regex101.com/r/sbpy8s/1 https://regex101.com/r/sbpy8s/1 But this matches for example dog.cat as one single word. But I would like that it matches separately dog and cat in this case. Likewise, I’d want for example dogapple-bananacat to be matched as two separate words dogapple and bananacat After a bit more reading online I thought that maybe the following regex would do what I want: \b(dog\p{L}*)|(\p{L}*cat)\b https://regex101.com/r/1NT5Ie/1 https://regex101.com/r/1NT5Ie/1 But that does not match dog42 as a word. What I want is a way to include everything after dog that is not \b And likewise everything preceding cat that is not \b Edit: I think I’ve found it after reading https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4541573/what-are-non-word-boundary-in-regex-b-compared-to-word-boundary https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4541573/what-are-non-wor... (\bdog\w*)|(\w*cat\b) Seems to behave exactly like I want. https://regex101.com/r/f3uJUE/1 https://regex101.com/r/f3uJUE/1

btown 4y ago
After all, who needs wget when you have \wcat!
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
KronisLV 4y ago
Out of curiosity: if humans have trouble coming up with anything non-trivial, like regexes, why should something that has been trained on the output of humans do much better? To me it feels like if 90% of $TASK content out there would be bad and people would struggle with it, then the AI-genrated $TASK output would be similarly flawed, be it regarding a programming language or something else. As a silly example, consider how much bad legacy PHP code is out there and what the answers to some PHP questions could become because of that. But it's still possible to get answers to simplistic problems reasonably fast, or at least get workable examples to then test and iterate upon, which can easily save some time.