Community

Let's say I have this:
So, I want TextPad to delete everything else, leaving only the NIS_DWHvn using REGULAR EXPRESSION.

Meaning, based on the above text, I want to use TextPad to make it like this: So, how am I going to do that??

Thank you.



p/s: INVERT ALL BOOKMARKS won't help

In TextPad you can't delete all lines not matching an arbitrary regular expression.

Marking all lines containing NIS_DWHv, inverting all bookmarks, and deleting all bookmarked lines might be the easiest way to do it. In what sense will this not help?

But you can do it in WildEdit (http://www.textpad.com/products/wildedit/), which uses a far more powerful regular expression engine than TextPad:

Find what: ^(?!.*NIS_DWHv).*\r?\n
Replace with: [nothing]

[X] Regular expression

Options
[X] '.' does not match a newline character

Replace by

Ah. Is that what aimy wants? The original message isn't very clear.

I read it the same way as MudGuard did, maybe because it was easier to do.

ben_josephs wrote:Ah. Is that what aimy wants? The original message isn't very clear.

Nope! It's not that...

Maybe MudGuard thinks the other way around i.e. to transform NIS_DWHv into
NIS_DWHv1
NIS_DWHv2
NIS_DWHv3
NIS_DWHv4
NIS_DWHv5
NIS_DWHv6
NIS_DWHv7
NIS_DWHv8

I think so.

ben_josephs wrote:In TextPad you can't delete all lines not matching an arbitrary regular expression.

Marking all lines containing NIS_DWHv, inverting all bookmarks, and deleting all bookmarked lines might be the easiest way to do it. In what sense will this not help?

But you can do it in WildEdit (http://www.textpad.com/products/wildedit/), which uses a far more powerful regular expression engine than TextPad:

Find what: ^(?!.*NIS_DWHv).*\r?\n
Replace with: [nothing]

[X] Regular expression

Options
[X] '.' does not match a newline character

I've edited my message.

So are you sure WildEdit can do that??

Anyway, I really hope I can make it with TextPad

Sorry, I am confused.

If YOU think so, that MudGuard's analysis is correct, then why not implement that solution? Why the concern about WildEdit? He has provided a TextPad solution.

This is YOUR question. If YOU think it is correct, then that is the answer.

Bob Hansen wrote:Sorry, I am confused.

If YOU think so, that MudGuard's analysis is correct, then why not implement that solution? Why the concern about WildEdit? He has provided a TextPad solution.

This is YOUR question. If YOU think it is correct, then that is the answer.

Sorry Bob, I am confused either..

Coz I've been thinking that MudGuard has got me wrong.

Well anyway, I've tried it but this is the result...

To make it more clear,

Instead of using this 2 steps..
1. Replace 'TRUNCATE TABLE ' with nothing
2. Replace '[.][[:print:]]\{1,100\}' with nothing

I want a one single replacement using Regular Expression that will yield this:
out of

Thank you.

aimy, my solution works.

Maybe you have
Configure - Preferences - Editor - Use POSIX Regular Expression Syntax
switched off? If so, switch it on and try again.

Also make sure there is no trailing space at the end of the Search/Replace RegEx expressions from cut/paste.

Oh my God, yeah MudGuard, it works like a charm!!! 8)

Thank you so much!!!

And I am so sorry for misunderstood you earlier. Please accept my apologize OK.

By the way, may I know why do I have to use POSIX operator instead of using the default one? Is it because I cannot achieve the result if I use the default operator? As far as I know, the difference between the two is only about the syntax, and it seems that POSIX operator is in a less complex form, am I correct?

And also.. Would you mind to explain me a little bit about the coding so that I could understand it better and thus apply the same concept for the future. Let's say I only want to leave all those table names i.e. those text that comes after the dot '.'. How do I achieve that? Please explain that too..

Thank you very much.

I love TextPad very much..

Bob Hansen wrote:Also make sure there is no trailing space at the end of the Search/Replace RegEx expressions from cut/paste.

Thank you Bob.

No wonder you seemed to get angry with me yesterday,

Yeah, I've got it!!

Replace with Yahooo!!!

Any comments from you guys?

By the way, I've also discovered that I can achieve the same result by using the default operator with its complex syntax as you all know..

Can someone please tell me why do we need such a different operator then?? Why can't make it POSIX alone by default?

Last but not least, will all my macros that used the DEFAULT OPERATOR be affected if I TURN ON the POSIX operator right from now on?

Thank you.