To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.admin.nntpOpen lugnet.admin.nntp in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Administrative / NNTP / 1311
1310  |  1312
Subject: 
Re: // and ** vs {} and [] (was: testing in rtl...)
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.publish, lugnet.admin.nntp
Date: 
Fri, 30 May 2003 17:02:31 GMT
Viewed: 
8 times
  
In lugnet.publish, Brian H. Nielsen wrote:
I think you'll find too many anomalies if FTX supports // and ** directly.

That's what I used to think too -- but I'm not so sure anymore...

http://www.lugnet.com/publish/ftx/guide/

I don't think the parser would get confused by this because of two things:  (1)
the double slash and (2) the http: prefix.

//www.lugnet.com/publish/ftx/guide/

I've never seen anyone write anything like that before.  But in any case, it's
got two leading slashes instead of one.

One plate is 1/3 the height of a brick and 2 plates 2/3 the height.

Ya, the parser would ignore those because the slashes aren't at the beginnings
or endings of words.

I'll be there on 5/30/03 at noon.

Ditto.

You need to put a </TD> tag after the </A> tag.

If you're posting in FTX, the < > characters mean something else anyway.  And if
you're posting in plain text, the < > wouldn't be beginning- or end-of-word
characters.

my $BAR = join "", grep { !m/[\Q$foo\E\s]/ } map { chr($_) } (32..255);

That it would probably get confused by.  What do OEQuoteFix and Mozilla do in
cases like these?

If you want to do that use: grep -l a*b* *.txt

That's likely to be a challenge to parse.

The correct formula is a * a + b * b = c * c

This wouldn't present a problem.

Even with [] and {} you might have some problems.  For example, what would
happen if I wanted this message to use FTX formatting in a reply to your
message?  What would your parsing code look like?

It assumes the whole message is formatted the same way.  If you change the
method, it expects you to clean up any problems.  This is another reason why
// and ** might be better than [] and {}.

--Todd



Message has 2 Replies:
  Re: // and ** vs {} and [] (was: testing in rtl...)
 
(...) Since you don't think most of the above are problems because they are not on word boandaries, how do you reconcile that with FTX's support for bolding, italicizing, or underlining part of a word, such as in the example in the FTX quick start (...) (21 years ago, 30-May-03, to lugnet.publish, lugnet.admin.nntp)
  Re: // and ** vs {} and [] (was: testing in rtl...)
 
(...) Can't speak for Mozilla, but OEQuotefix doesn't react on the above line (or any other of Brian's suggestions), it seems to only process special characters at the beginning, and ending, of a word, and does nothing if special chars overlap, like (...) (21 years ago, 1-Jun-03, to lugnet.publish, lugnet.admin.nntp)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: // and ** vs {} and [] (was: testing in rtl...)
 
(...) I think you'll find too many anomalies if FTX supports // and ** directly. You have to also make sure you don't FTX format text that is not intended to be FTX formatted. Some examples to consider follow. For slashes: Valid web addresses: (URL) (...) (21 years ago, 30-May-03, to lugnet.publish, lugnet.admin.nntp)

31 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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR