|
|
Comments and Discussions
|
|
 |
|
|
I am using this in Artistic Style, a popular multi-platform code formatter available at SourceForge.
http://astyle.sourceforge.net/
Release 1.22 added directory recursion to the project. Wildcard processing was made internal to the program. Linux has a glob function but Windows doesn't. I just used this for both of them. It let me process both platforms in a similar manner.
A minor change was made for Windows to make the comparison case insensitive. Linux was left case sensitive.
Thanks for making it available. Using this was a lot easier than writing my own. I doubt that mine would have been this sophisticated.
|
|
|
|
|
 Boy do I feel stupid. I worked on an algorithm like this for days, and never got it quite right. Then, I see the wonderful, and simplistic work of someone like this, and it reminds me that sometimes we all are guilty of 'over-engineering'...
Thanks Mr. Handy!
|
|
|
|
|
How can this code be converted to do a replace? I need to provide a find/replace dialog in an application and I don't want to jump through the hoops of the Boost library. Can anyone help?
Patrick
|
|
|
|
|
Here's RegExp version (may be easily ported to C++).
Pros: More readable, Relies on proven RegExp
Cons: Maybe slower?, If eval string contains RegExp keywords then it might result in unexpected result
public static bool Match(string eval, string pattern, bool caseSensitive)
{
bool match = false;
// Make input parameters lower-case if case is not an issue
if (!caseSensitive)
{
eval = eval.ToLower();
pattern = pattern.ToLower();
}
// Escape regexp special character in pattern
pattern = pattern.Replace(".", @"\.");
// Replace valid wildcards with regexp equivalents
pattern = pattern.Replace('?', '.').Replace("*", ".*");
// Add boundaries to pattern
pattern = @"\A" + pattern + @"\z";
// Search for a match
try
{
match = Regex.IsMatch(eval, pattern);
}
catch /* (ArgumentException ex) */
{
// Syntax error in the regular expression
}
// Return result
return match;
}
|
|
|
|
|
This is tight and clever. Thanks for sharing it.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
wildcmp("*<*>", "<field1><field2>") return 1 while I think it should return 0 (I maybe wrong, so please tell me).
If someone knows how to fix it, I will appreciate.
Regards
|
|
|
|
|
I think it's better to make the function return a bool value. Anyway, many string comparision functions return 0 when the strings equal.
|
|
|
|
|
if wild = "*?.abc", str = "abc.abc"
wildcmp(wild, str) not work
but if wild = "?*.abc", str = "abc.abc"
wildcmp(wild, str) do work
does anyone have any idea about the case?
|
|
|
|
|
Simple, fast, useful, AND fun to figure out.
Well done.
|
|
|
|
|
i got the overall flow of the program I didnt get the logic of the second loop completely. I understand that in the second loop it checks if there is nothing after * if so then it is a match but if there is something it stores them in the two pointers and then goes on.
also in the final else it goes like else
{
wild = mp;
string = cp++;
}
am sorry but am not getting the logic totally.
can someone please explain?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hello,
i think this post is very interesting because is very simple and make very cool work !
BUT !
I don't understand why you make 3 loop to do it ?
I think i don't see all case, because for me only the 2 loop make all the work ?
I'm trying to understand all the process to add optionnal char with the ^ escape sequence, for exemple : ^-* match -12 or 12 
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
Hi, i have a stupid question, could someone give me the c# version 
thanks in advance
|
|
|
|
|
most C compare functions return zero when the values are equal, but this function returns non-zero.
Personally, I find the non-zero to be more intuitive .. but after years of forcing myself to check for zero I find it a bit counter-intuitive.
I think I'll just rename the function when I add it to my library
But that certainly wont stop me from using this wonderful routine.
Many sincere thanks ...
|
|
|
|
|
This is realy nice & and useful code. I used to write something similar, but your example is simplier and shorter.
Because it lacks comments, I spent some time to understand (before I saw comment form Targys  - real tutorial ) and it is clear now. Thanks to both of you!
To 'wise' guys, flamers, and other people who has nothing to do instead of arguing:
- If the code has a bug, report but don't pretend you are a genius or a guru. If you can do it better, submit an article.
If you don't like the code, don't use it!
And about NULL pointers:
Idiot-proofing should be implemented at the level where data (function arguments) is acquired and prepared, not in such low-level function.
Besides that, I tested several functions from string.h with NULL parameters and every single one threw an exception. No further comments...
Regards, Voja
|
|
|
|
|
Great piece of code, but I have one minor improvement. It appears to me that the variable "cp" doesn't do anything and servers no purpose.
If I'm correct, then you can safely remove the line:
cp = string+1;
and also remove:
string = cp;
and replace:
cp = string++;
with:
++string;
I'm believe the results would be identical.
|
|
|
|
|
Just a thought:
the PathMatchSpec SLWU API could provide similar. I guess it does have some differences (e.g. allowing to specify multiple specs, separated by semicolon), but it might be a simple alternative for many similar tasks.
we are here to help each other get through this thing, whatever it is Vonnegut jr.
sighist || Agile Programming | doxygen
|
|
|
|
|
Tried these wildcards, and they show different results in your code and in Windows Explorer's search command.
??x*
*so*
??so*
??so??
Lack of comments in the code also make it a bit difficult to understand. On the whole however, good job!
Bikram
|
|
|
|
|
I want case insenstive wildcmp function. Could anyone help me?
|
|
|
|
|
Very nice, compact, works great and is very fast. Thanks, Jack!
Best wishes,
Hans
|
|
|
|
|
I've seen a few people in these boards complain that I didn't check for null pointers in this function. This is a C function and the last time I checked, passing NULL to strcmp or any other C string function will segfault. I'm not saying this is great, and if you wanted to add a check for null, that would be fine. I just don't think that this is a 'bug' (if you can even call it that) worth flaming an otherwise great function.
-Jack
There are 10 types of people in this world, those that understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
great code, but if I'm not mistaken
cp can point beyon string array bounds.
try: wild="*a", string="xyzab"
correction:
string = cp++;
should be changed to:
string = cp;
if(*cp) cp++;
|
|
|
|
|
I saw this one a long time ago, and finally have a use for it. Thank you very much.
Chris Richardson
Programmers find all sorts of ingenious ways to screw ourselves over. - Tim Smith
|
|
|
|
|
I converted this into C# and bingo...
I tried to break it but couldn't
|
|
|
|
|
|
Could anyone explain how this code works for me? I am having trouble trying to figure out what is going on in a couple places. I would think a short explination would help out some other people like me who don't know C. Thanks in advance!
|
|
|
|
|
why use local variables and so many loops? it can be much easier to match two strings. i don't understand why so many people spend hours to search the web for wildcard matching when they can write it themselves in 5 minutes time??!
the code below could be shorter but it's easier to read like this.
i didn't debug it very much but it will work, though.
// -------------------------------------------------------------------
int wildcmp(const char* wild, const char* string)
// -------------------------------------------------------------------
{
if(*wild == *string)
return '\0' == *string || wildcmp(++wild, ++string);
if('\0' == *string)
return '*' == *wild && wildcmp(++wild, string);
switch(*wild)
{
case '?':
return wildcmp(++wild, ++string);
case '*':
wild++;
if('\0' == *wild)
return 1;
while(*string != '\0')
if(wildcmp(wild, string++))
return 1;
default:
return 0;
}
}
yours,
the c++ guru himself.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the code! I was searching the web for a simple wildcard matching routine ... I don't want full blown regular expressions, I just want to do simple wildcards against a list of filenames. This is perfect!
|
|
|
|
|
I found this very useful. thx!
Todd Smith
|
|
|
|
|
I ran the following test cases through wildcmp, all successful. (The test() function compares the pattern to the input string, and compares against the expected result).
test( "", "", true );
test( "*", "", true );
test( "*", "A", true );
test( "", "A", false );
test( "A*", "", false );
test( "A*", "AAB", true );
test( "A*", "BAA", false );
test( "A*", "A", true );
test( "A*B", "", false );
test( "A*B", "AAB", true );
test( "A*B", "AB", true );
test( "A*B", "AABA", false );
test( "A*B", "ABAB", true );
test( "A*B", "ABBBB", true );
test( "A*B*C", "", false );
test( "A*B*C", "ABC", true );
test( "A*B*C", "ABCC", true );
test( "A*B*C", "ABBBC", true );
test( "A*B*C", "ABBBBCCCC", true );
test( "A*B*C", "ABCBBBCBCCCBCBCCCC", true );
test( "A*B*", "AB", true );
test( "A*B*", "AABA", true );
test( "A*B*", "ABAB", true );
test( "A*B*", "ABBBB", true );
test( "A*B*C*", "", false );
test( "A*B*C*", "ABC", true );
test( "A*B*C*", "ABCC", true );
test( "A*B*C*", "ABBBC", true );
test( "A*B*C*", "ABBBBCCCC", true );
test( "A*B*C*", "ABCBBBCBCCCBCBCCCC", true );
test( "A?", "AAB", false );
test( "A?B", "AAB", true );
test( "A?*", "A", false );
test( "A?*", "ABBCC", true );
test( "A?*", "BAA", false );
Paul McGuire
KLA-Tencor/Process Analysis & Control Division
Austin, TX
|
|
|
|
|
Do you have a regex formatter/matcher source code. Please reply, Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
This is EXACTLY what I have been looking for! I have been searching the web for a simple wildcard matcher, and all I have found is regex after regex of source code. I even started reading a regex tutorial. Why waste time learning regex and bloating my program with 20k of regex code I'll never use when 20 lines of pure bliss can be inserted? Thanks!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
wildcmp("fold","??*"); should match. 
This message has been virus scanned
|
|
|
|
|
Under DOS / Windows following line should return positive result
wildcmp("*.*", "aaaaa")
It would be nice if you would add this feature too
Miroslav Rajcic
http://www.spacetide.com
|
|
|
|
|
Why don't use a normal regex? There are so many regex libraries floating around
which offer more functionality.
Apparently this is the Wheel Mark II.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 General  News  Suggestion  Question  Bug  Answer  Joke  Rant  Admin
|
Matches a string against a wildcard string such as "*.*" or "bl?h.*" etc. This is good for file globbing or to match hostmasks.
| Type | Article |
| Licence | |
| First Posted | 1 May 2001 |
| Views | 683,921 |
| Bookmarked | 89 times |
|
|
Submit an article or tip
Post your Blog
