|
|
Posted by Rik on 06/17/54 11:51
McHenry wrote:
> "Rik" <luiheidsgoeroe@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ab90a$449fde69$8259c69c$10096@news1.tudelft.nl...
>> McHenry wrote:
>>> Why could we not simply have used as this is what I tried and it
>>> didn't work ?
>>> <h3>.*?(?P<field2>[0-9\.,]*).*?</h3>
>>
>> 1. It matches a single dot or comma, not desired.
>> 2. It matches 'nothing' (* = 0 or more)
>>
>> In <h3>.*?(?P<field2>[0-9]+[0-9\.,]*).*?</h3>, we use [0-9]+ to say:
>> once you have found at least 1 number, and maybe more, capture all
>> numbers, comma's and dot's.
>
> Thanks Rik, I understand the difference... wow are these things
> normally easy to follow or always this heard ?
YOu'll just have to get used to it, the more you use them, the easier they
become. One reason I normally reply to regex questions is to sharpen my
skills :-).
> I have a regex, that performs three captures of three prices, it
> works when all three are present and numeric however if one is
> missing or listed as POA or similar then all three fail. Can this be
> overcome or do I need three seperate preg_match statements ?
>
> Thanks in advance...
With listed as 'POA' you mean it literally?
If you're using the simple one:
<h3>.*?(?:(?P<prices>(?:[0-9]+[0-9\.,]*)|POA).*?){1,3}</h3>
Grtz,
--
Rik Wasmus
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|