this post was submitted on 31 Oct 2024
333 points (98.0% liked)

Programmer Humor

36755 readers
145 users here now

Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

^.?$|^(..+?)\1+$

Matches strings of any character repeated a non-prime number of times

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vbk0TwkokM

(page 2) 33 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago (4 children)

Is there a reason to use (..+?) instead of (.+) ?

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago

It matches “yo momma”.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Empty input Or input of exactly 1 character Or input of at least 2 characters, followed by at least 1 something (idk what \1 matches)

Did I get it (almost)?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

\1 is group 1 which is inside (), so second part is repeated 2 or more times of 2 or more char.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

Interesting.

So that means match any string that is made entirely of a single repeating sequence, where repititon is possible.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I could be wrong but I think the (..+?) portion will either remove a dud or replenish the allowance.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago

The pipe is throwing me off because usually I have to do parentheses for that to work...

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago

It matches for non-primes and doesn't match for primes.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I'm I the only one who pronounces regex with a soft g? Hard g feels so clunky

[–] [email protected] -2 points 7 months ago (3 children)

All my homies hate regexs. That's actually the best use case I found for LLMs so far : I just tell it what I want it to match or not match, and it usually spits out a decent one

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›