Prev: TclOO: Renaming "new" and "create" methods?
Next: fickle problem...
From: Keith on 23 Apr 2010 11:24
% set x 567
567
% string length $x
3
% regexp "\d{[string length $x]}" $x d
0

I have tried using

set e [string length $x]
eval regexp "\d{$e}" $x d

also with no matching.

TIA.
--
Best Regards, Keith
http://home.comcast.net/~kilowattradio/
I'm Your Huckle Berry
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfbAFgD2mLo
From: Donald G Porter on 23 Apr 2010 11:44
Keith wrote:
> % set x 567
> 567
> % string length $x
> 3
> % regexp "\d{[string length $x]}" $x d
> 0

You forgot that Tcl syntax defines backslash
substitution. Here's one way to makes things work:

% regexp [subst -nobackslashes {\d{[string length $x]}}] $x d
1
From: Glenn Jackman on 23 Apr 2010 12:12
At 2010-04-23 11:24AM, "Keith" wrote:
> % set x 567
> 567
> % string length $x
> 3

% set re "\d{[string length $x]}"
d{3}

Notice the leading backslash has disappeared -- Tcl's double quoted
strings substitute backslash sequences (eg. "\n")

You might want to do this instead

% regexp "\\d{[string length $x]}" $x d
1
% set d
567


--
Glenn Jackman
Write a wise saying and your name will live forever. -- Anonymous
From: Aric Bills on 23 Apr 2010 12:17
On Apr 23, 9:24 am, Keith <kilowattra...(a)use-reply-to.invalid> wrote:
> % set x 567
> 567
> % string length $x
> 3
> % regexp "\d{[string length $x]}" $x d
> 0
>
>  I have tried using
>
> set e [string length $x]
> eval regexp "\d{$e}" $x d
>
> also with no matching.
>
> TIA.
> --
> Best Regards, Keithhttp://home.comcast.net/~kilowattradio/
> I'm Your Huckle Berryhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfbAFgD2mLo

Depending on what you're trying to accomplish, there's also [string is
integer -strict $x]...
From: Uwe Klein on 23 Apr 2010 12:41
Keith wrote:
> % set x 567
> 567
> % string length $x
> 3
> % regexp "\d{[string length $x]}" $x d
> 0
% regexp \\d\{[string length $x]\} $x d
1
wouldn't
regexp {^\d*$} $x d
suffice?

% regexp {^\d*$} $x d
1
% set x abc567
abc567
% regexp {^\d*$} $x d
0
%

uwe
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: TclOO: Renaming "new" and "create" methods?
Next: fickle problem...