[erlang-questions] regexp sux!
Mon May 21 17:27:53 CEST 2007
Darius Bacon <> writes:
> Here's a lightly-tested hack -- I'm not familiar with the existing
> libraries so this is from scratch.
You bloody showoff. :-) Works great!
I had to add . (dot) but nothing else really obvious is missing.
Feel free to draw my attention to anything I'm overlooking though :-)
Can I steal this code and use it at work?
NB: I would still feel more comfortable if this were quickcheck'd a
bit for divergence etc. I can't help but think that a free quickcheck
clone is likely to surface soon. I hope that John & Thomas are happy
with this idea or if not that they make their one accessible to us
random hackers on the list somehow soon :-)
More information about the erlang-questions