You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Valve AA has flow rate=0; tunnels lead to valves DD, II, BB
Valve BB has flow rate=13; tunnels lead to valves CC, AA
we can of course match the repeated part separately then use other tools, can we do better ? What would be the syntax ? Note that in this case as in most (I think) we have separators (on less by item by definition)
Maybe something like : "Valve {valves} has flow rate={rate}; tunnels lead to valves {to+=pattern}"
The + here means we match the same strings as "Valve {valves} has flow rate={rate}; tunnels lead to valves {to=pattern+}" but the output would be treated differently. we can generalise it to * and {n}, and ?.
Where we'd need a lookahead in the pattern if we're to account for separators, but maybe that's ok if we have a good example. Results would be nested and converted if relevant.
Then there is the technical question, the above might change the pattern to "(pattern)(pattern)?(pattern)?..." with a default tweak able max length, ugly but might work ?
Other option is to have an unglue_repeated() family of functions that we might use on the output of a regular output, these would have an optional sep arg.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
What to do with :
we can of course match the repeated part separately then use other tools, can we do better ? What would be the syntax ? Note that in this case as in most (I think) we have separators (on less by item by definition)
Maybe something like : "Valve {valves} has flow rate={rate}; tunnels lead to valves {to+=pattern}"
The
+
here means we match the same strings as "Valve {valves} has flow rate={rate}; tunnels lead to valves {to=pattern+}" but the output would be treated differently. we can generalise it to*
and{n}
, and?
.Where we'd need a lookahead in the pattern if we're to account for separators, but maybe that's ok if we have a good example. Results would be nested and converted if relevant.
Then there is the technical question, the above might change the pattern to "(pattern)(pattern)?(pattern)?..." with a default tweak able max length, ugly but might work ?
Other option is to have an
unglue_repeated()
family of functions that we might use on the output of a regular output, these would have an optionalsep
arg.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: