Subject:
|
Re: Lost Instructions
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Thu, 13 Apr 2000 16:26:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
796 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> So something like
>
> m/^Re(?:\[\d+\]):\s*/i
>
> might be even safer, since this would be for broken clients in the first
> place, and cc:Mail is-was about as broken as one can get. :-)
just for efficiancy's sake, you shouldn't put a /s* at the end - it's not doing
anything at all, is it? if there's anything that matches the /s class, it'll
just take longer to complete the match, but if there's no /s at the end, it'll
still match just the same...
:)
Dan
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Lost Instructions
|
| (...) True -- the \s* isn't doing anything in that case. The regex could be considered a shorter form of ($subject_base) = ($subject_raw =~ m/^(Re(?:\[\d+\]):\s...?(.*)$/i); in which the \s* is actually needed. I left it on in the example way above (...) (25 years ago, 13-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Lost Instructions
|
| (...) Ya, that oughtta work too. :) Say, I just remembered one thing from cc:Mail -- it puts (or used to -- not sure if it's still the case today) the reply depth count in square brackets between "Re" and ":", i.e.: Re: blah blah blah Re[2]: blah (...) (25 years ago, 13-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
10 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
