Oh, wait a second. I misread your original post. Please ignore my
truly incorrect suggestion.
-- Bert
On Fri, Mar 1, 2024 at 7:57 AM Bert Gunter wrote:
>
> Here's another *incorrect* way to do it -- incorrect because it will
> not always work, unlike Iris's correct solution. But it does not
> re
Here's another *incorrect* way to do it -- incorrect because it will
not always work, unlike Iris's correct solution. But it does not
require PERL type matching. The idea: separate the two vowels in the
regex by a character that you know cannot appear (if there is such)
and match it optionally, e.g
Hi Iris,
Thank you. Further, very nice solution.
Best,
Iago
On 01/03/2024 12:49, Iris Simmons wrote:
> Hi Iago,
>
>
> This is not a bug. It is expected. Patterns may not overlap. However, there
> is a way to get the result you want using perl:
>
> ```R
> gsub("([aeiouAEIOU])(?=[aeiouAEIOU])", "
Hi Iago,
This is not a bug. It is expected. Patterns may not overlap. However, there
is a way to get the result you want using perl:
```R
gsub("([aeiouAEIOU])(?=[aeiouAEIOU])", "\\1_", "aerioue", perl = TRUE)
```
The specific change I made is called a positive lookahead, you can read
more about
Hi all,
I tested next command:
gsub("([aeiouAEIOU])([aeiouAEIOU])", "\\1_\\2", "aerioue")
with the following output:
[1] "a_eri_ou_e"
So, there are two consecutive vowels where an underscore is not added.
May it be a bug? Is it expected (bug or not)? Is there any chance to get
what I want (a
5 matches
Mail list logo
