Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Owlett <rowlett@access.net>
Newsgroups: comp.editors
Subject: Re: Confused first time Kate user
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2024 07:45:18 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 44
Message-ID: <v63h50$26hsm$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v613h1$1m6k5$1@dont-email.me>
 <slrnv88573.3c14.candycanearter07@candydeb.host.invalid>
 <v63bs4$25m5u$1@dont-email.me> <v63dmi$30frd$1@news.xmission.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2024 14:45:20 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f6e74a799287c69bdbadacfb3d9bc4e7";
	logging-data="2312086"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18AwtlvWGiYrgpse9kLEwgSwkXzjI0ZS6c="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/52.0
 SeaMonkey/2.49.4
Cancel-Lock: sha1:2Flne3OSAP2+9oAFAOvo5L9HUkY=
In-Reply-To: <v63dmi$30frd$1@news.xmission.com>
Bytes: 2697

On 07/03/2024 06:46 AM, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> In article <v63bs4$25m5u$1@dont-email.me>,
> Richard Owlett  <rowlett@access.net> wrote:
> ...
>>> This regex expression should do what you want:
>>> [[:digit:]]{3}
>>>
>>
>> I suspect that would accept a value of "0".
>> *ERROR* with results I don't wish to contemplate.
> 
> I suspect that what you want to do actually can't be done (accurately) with
> regexps, if we interpret your requirements literally.  Most responders so
> far have pretty much glossed over your requirements.

You noticed < *GRIN* >
Unfortunately that's fairly common on USENET.
I'm used to windowing "wheat" from "chaff".

>  For example, while
> you want to match (and replace) XYZ299, you want to leave XYZ300 alone.

Actually its more the case  that for _my_ application XYZ300 and above 
physically cannot exist.

> 
> You probably need a programming languages (such as AWK) to do this correctly.

No. Further in this thread Janis Papanagnou demonstrated what I needed.

> 
> Note, BTW, that the real problem with regexps is that there are so many
> different implementations.  Supposedly, there is a standard - actually,
> multiple standards - but each implementation is subtly different.  For
> example, sometimes you need \ before special characters like ( or { or ?
> and sometimes you don't (depending on which implementation you are using).
> 

Yepp.
That's why my "Subject:" AND first sentence explicitly reference Kate.