Shakespeare as regexp [Matthew's Journal]

You're viewing

emperor's journal
Create a Dreamwidth Account Learn More

Reload page in style: site light

←

→

Inspired by this t-shirt...

[Poll #1236962]

←

→

There are 23 comments on this entry. (Reply.)

I still think it ought to be "the string that is exactly 'bb' or any string that does not have the substring 'bb'". But I haven't got my head round the re for it yet.

[link] [reply]

Urg, you just hurt my brain.

[link] [parent] [reply]

I think

jdev's suggestion comes close.

[link] [parent] [reply]

/b{2}|(?!b{2})/

[link] [reply]

/bb|^([^b]|b[^b])*b?$/

[link] [reply]

This is good.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Bastard. I've been trying to forget regular expressions.

Bring back SCL, that's what I say.

[link] [reply]

Said Hamlet to Ophelia,
"I'll draw a sketch of thee.
What kind of pencil shall I use?
2B or not 2B?"

- Spike Milligan

[link] [reply]

2b|!2b

[link] [reply]

Yes, that's nice and succinct. I've been battling Excel formulas this week, so had to go with option 4.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Sadly, not a regular expression :)

[link] [parent] [reply]

Well, I had to find Gareth for him to explain the finer points of regexps to me.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Well, they say you learn something new every day. They never specified it had to be useful ;-)

[link] [parent] [reply]

True, at least it's not a Perl-style reg-ex. However, it is an expression, and it seems fairly regular to me. ;-)

[link] [parent] [reply]

Why the parens in those first two examples?

/bb/ || !/bb/ (doesn't really cut it as a regexp joke, I suspect).

[link] [reply]

1) is as per the t-shirt
In 2) the brackets are surperfluous, /bb|[^b]{2}/ is equivalent

[link] [parent] [reply]

1. isn't that really "to be or two not-bs"[*]? I mean, I know what you mean, but it makes the pun not quite work IMHO.
2. ditto but with unnecessary brackets...
3. is "one or more 'to be's".
4. works, but could be written more concisely as /(bb)?/ surely?

A propos, I so want the regex cheat skirt. 8-)

[*] "You can't not be on a boat." "I've frequently not been on boats!" "No, what you've been is not on boats."

[link] [reply]

1) yeah, that's what's on the thinkgeek shirt, which is where all this started.
3) whups, yes, I meant that one to be /(bb)?/ not /(bb)+/

[link] [parent] [reply]

Skirt: oh wow! Shame they don't do more sizes.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Ultimately, you're doomed. x or not-x is true for any x, including "to be", so is most succinctly expressed by the null regexp.

So I just ticked whichever looked most amusing without regard to rigour.

[link] [reply]

/(bb)?/ works better than /(bb)+/ surely? The latter is "at least to be"

[link] [reply]

Yeah, that was a typo (see my comment to

j4 above).

[link] [parent] [reply]

Whether 'tis nobler in the compiler...

[link] [parent] [reply]

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25 1
26	27	28	29	30	31

Matthew's Journal

Shakespeare as regexp

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

Am I just being picky here?

Re: Am I just being picky here?

Re: Am I just being picky here?

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

October