I am using VBA in Ms Access environment, to handle long string (memo field storing HTML originally).
After positioning by Instr(), I put the position into Mid(vStr,vStartPos,vEndPos-vStartPos+1) to extract the string, but the output doesn't match. I have already carefully checked this in immediate windows, as well as NotePad++. What I can say is Instr() and NotePad++ have given the same counting result, while Mid() is different. Mid()'s result are former than Instr()'s in some cases, and latter in other cases. I don't know the reason, and can just believe Mid() use different mechanism or have defeative (surprised!) in handling long string mixed with single-byte and bi-byte chars (but this is common in the world, and meet no problem before), and possibly some special characters.
I believe I need to custom-make a Mid() function. Any idea how to do it effectively and efficiently?
Thanks all for your reply. After I created a custom Mid() by RegEx and find that the problem has no change, I have found out the silly mistake I made. The Instr() and Mid() have no problem, but the string has been carelessly modified between them. So this case should be closed now.
Related
I've implemented auto completion to a combobox like this article shows. Is it possible to make it search for substrings instead of just the beginning of the words?
http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/2371/IAutoComplete-and-custom-IEnumString-implementatio
I haven't found any way to customize how IEnumString/IAutoComplete compares the strings. Is it possible?
The built in search options help a bit but it is complete chaos. To find instring matches you need to set flag AcoWordFilter. But this will prevent from numbers being matched!! However, there is a trick to get the numbers to match: preced with a double-quote as in "3 to find a string containing or starting with "3". Some more chaos? In the AcoWordFilter you also need to prefix other characters not considered part of a "word", eg. you need to prefix parentheses with a " but then you will not find parentheses at the first position!
So the solution is either to create your own implementation of IAutoComplete or offer the user to switch between the modes (a bit awkward).
I dont think that the MS engineers are especially proud of such chaos. How about one more option: AcoSearchAnwhere?
After retrieving the Edit control's IAutoComplete interface, query it for an IAutoComplete2 interface. Calling its SetOptions member you can disable prefix filtering by specifying the ACO_NOPREFIXFILTERING AUTOCOMPLETEOPTIONS.
This is available on Windows Vista and later. If you need a solution that works with pre-Vista versions, you'll have to write your own.
This should be an easy one for folks. Google's got nothing except content farms linking to one blurb, and that's written in broken English. So let's get this cleared up here where it'll be entombed for all time.
What's the trailing ampersand on VB hexadecimal numbers for? I've read it forces conversion to an Int32 on the chance VB wants to try and store as an Int16. That makes sense to me. But the part I didn't get from the blurb was to always use the trailing ampersand for bitmasks, flags, enums, etc. Apparantly, it has something to do with overriding VB's fetish for using signed numbers for things internally, which can lead to weird results in comparisons.
So to get easy points, what are the rules for VB.Net hexadecimal numbers, with and without the trailing ampersand? Please include the specific usage in the case of bitmasks/flags and such, and how one would also use it to force signed vs. unsigned.
No C# please :)
Vb.net will regard "&h"-notation hex constants in the range from 0x80000000-0xFFFFFFFF as negative numbers unless the type is explicitly specified as UInt32, Int64, or UInt64. Such behavior might be understandable if the numbers were written with precisely eight digits following the "&", but for some reason I cannot fathom, vb.net will behave that way even if the numbers are written with leading zeroes. In present versions of VB, one may force the number to be evaluated correctly by using a suffix of "&" suffix (Int64), "L" (Int64), "UL" (UInt64), or "UI" (UInt32). In earlier versions of VB, the "problem range" was 0x8000-0xFFFF, and the only way to force numbers in that range to be evaluated correctly (as a 32-bit integer, which was then called a "Long") was a trailing ampersand.
Visual Basic has the concept of Type Characters. These can be used to modify variable declarations and literals, although I'd not recommend using them in variable declarations - most developers are more familiar these days with As. E.g. the following declarations are equivalent:
Dim X&
Dim X As Long
But personally, I find the second more readable. If I saw the first, I'd actually have to go visit the link above, or use Intellisense, to work out what the variable is (not good if looking at the code on paper).
I set the culture to Hungarian language, and Chr() seems to be broken.
System.Threading.Thread.CurrentThread.CurrentCulture = "hu-US"
System.Threading.Thread.CurrentThread.CurrentUICulture = "hu-US"
Chr(254)
This returns "ţ" when it should be "þ"
However, Asc("ţ") returns 116.
This: Asc(Chr(254)) returns 116.
Why would Asc() and Chr() be different?
I checked and the 'wide' functions do work correctly: ascw(chrw(254)) = 254
Chr(254) interprets the argument in a system dependent way, by looking at the System.Globalization.CultureInfo.CurrentCulture.TextInfo.ANSICodePage property. See the MSDN article about Chr. You can check whether that value is what you expect. "hu-US" (the hungarian locale as used in the US) might do something strange there.
As a side-note, Asc() has no promise about the used codepage in its current documentation (it was there until 3.0).
Generally I would stick to the unicode variants (ending on -W) if at all possible or use the Encoding class to explicitly specify the conversions.
My best guess is that your Windows tries to represent Chr(254)="ţ" as a combined letter, where the first letter is Chr(116)="t" and the second ("¸" or something like that) cannot be returned because Chr() only returns one letter.
Unicode text should not be handled character-by-character.
It sounds like you need to set the code page for the current thread -- the current culture shouldn't have any effect on Asc and Chr.
Both the Chr docs and the Asc docs have this line:
The returned character depends on the code page for the current thread, which is contained in the ANSICodePage property of the TextInfo class. TextInfo.ANSICodePage can be obtained by specifying System.Globalization.CultureInfo.CurrentCulture.TextInfo.ANSICodePage.
I have seen several problems in VBA on the Mac where characters over 127 and some control characters are not treated properly.
This includes paragraph marks (especially in text copied from the internet or scanned), "¥", and "Ω".
They cannot always be searched for, cannot be used in file names - though they could in the past, and when tested, come up as another ascii number. I have had to write algorithms to change these when files open, as they often look like they are the right character, but then crash some of my macros when they act strangely. The character will look and act right when I save the file, but may be changed when it is reopened.
I will eventually try to switch to unicode, but I am not sure if that will help this issue.
This may not be the issue that you are observing, but I would not rule out isolated problems with certain characters like this. I have sent notes to MS about this in the past but have received no joy.
If you cannot find another solution and the character looks correct when you type it in, then I recommend using a macro snippet like the one below, which I run when updating tables. You of course have to setup theRange as the area you are looking at. A whole file can take a while.
For aChar = 1 To theRange.Characters.count
theRange.Characters(aChar).Select
If Asc(Selection.Text) = 95 And Selection.Text <> "_" Then Selection.TypeText "Ω"
Next aChar
I am writing a backend application which needs to be able to send multiple SQL commands to a MySQL server.
MySQL >= 5.x support multiple statements, but unfortunately we are interfacing with MySQL 4.x.
I am trying to find a way (hint: regex) to split SQL statements by their semicolon, but it should ignore semicolons in single and double quotes strings.
http://www.dev-explorer.com/articles/multiple-mysql-queries has a very nice regex to do that, but doesn't support double quotes.
I'd be happy to hear your suggestions.
Can't be done with regex, it's insufficiently powerful to parse SQL. There may be an SQL parser available for your language — which is it? — but parsing SQL is quite hard, especially given the range of different syntaxes available. Even in MySQL alone there are many SQL_MODE flags on a server and connection level that can affect how basic strings and comments are parsed, making statements behave quite differently.
The example at dev-explorer goes to amusing lengths to try to cope with escaped apostrophes and trailing strings, but will still fail for many valid combinations of them, not to mention the double quotes, backticks, the various comment syntaxes, or ANSI SQL_MODE.
As bobince said, regular expressions are probably not going to be powerful enough to do this. They're certainly not going to be powerful enough to do it in any halfway elegant manner. The second link cdonner provided also does not address this; most answers there were trying to talk the questioner out of doing this without semicolons; if he had taken the general advice, then he'd have ended up where you are.
I think the quickest path to solving this is going to be with a string scanner function, that examines every character of the string in sequence, and reacts based on a bit of stored state. Rough pseudocode:
Read in a character
If the character is not special, CONTINUE
If the character is escaped (checking this probably requires examining the previous character), CONTINUE
If the character would start a new string or end an existing one, toggle a flag IN_STRING (you might need multiple flags for different string types... I've honestly tried and succeeded at remaining ignorant of the minutiae of SQL quoting/escaping) and CONTINUE
If the character is a semicolon AND we are not currently in a string, we have found a query! OUTPUT it and CONTINUE scanning until the end of the string.
Language parsing is not any of my areas of experience, so you'll want to consider that approach carefully; nonetheless, it's going to be fast (with C-style strings, none of those steps are at all expensive, save possibly for the OUTPUT, depending on what "outputting" means in your context) and I think it should get the job done.
maybe with the following Java Regexp? check the test...
#Test
public void testRegexp() {
String s = //
"SELECT 'hello;world' \n" + //
"FROM DUAL; \n" + //
"\n" + //
"SELECT 'hello;world' \n" + //
"FROM DUAL; \n" + //
"\n";
String regexp = "([^;]*?('.*?')?)*?;\\s*";
assertEquals("<statement><statement>", s.replaceAll(regexp, "<statement>"));
}
I would suggest seeing if you can redefine the problem space so the need to send multiple queries separated only by their terminator is not required.
Try this. Just replaced the 1st ' with \" and it seems to work for both ' and "
;+(?=([^\"|^\\']['|\\'][^'|^\\']['|\\'])[^'|^\\'][^'|^\\']$)
This question already has answers here:
Closed 10 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
String vs StringBuilder
I just revisited some of the books that I used to pick up VB.NET. I am not sure I've got this in my head, understand how/what StringBuilder is.
What is the guidance for using? Is it best to use it if you are are concatenating 2 strings or 50?
Or when the the total string length is greater than 128 characters?
Or will you see a performance benefit whenever you use it to add strings together?
In which case is it better to use a StringBuilder instance to build a SQL statement than string.format("Select * from x where y = {0}",1)?
It's always struck me that declaring another variable and including a name space is not beneficial for small string concatenations, but I am not sure now.
Sorry, lot of documentation tells you what to use, just not what's best.
I've got an article on this very topic. In summary (copied from the bottom of the page):
Definitely use StringBuilder when you're concatenating in a non-trivial loop - especially if you don't know for sure (at compile time) how many iterations you'll make through the loop. For example, reading a file a character at a time, building up a string as you go using the += operator is potentially performance suicide.
Definitely use the concatenation operator when you can (readably) specify everything which needs to be concatenated in one statement. (If you have an array of things to concatenate, consider calling String.Concat explicitly - or String.Join if you need a delimiter.)
Don't be afraid to break literals up into several concatenated bits - the result will be the same. You can aid readability by breaking a long literal into several lines, for instance, with no harm to performance.
If you need the intermediate results of the concatenation for something other than feeding the next iteration of concatenation, StringBuilder isn't going to help you. For instance, if you build up a full name from a first name and a last name, and then add a third piece of information (the nickname, maybe) to the end, you'll only benefit from using StringBuilder if you don't need the (first name + last name) string for other purpose (as we do in the example which creates a Person object).
If you just have a few concatenations to do, and you really want to do them in separate statements, it doesn't really matter which way you go. Which way is more efficient will depend on the number of concatenations the sizes of string involved, and what order they're concatenated in. If you really believe that piece of code to be a performance bottleneck, profile or benchmark it both ways.
Here is my rule of thumb:
StringBuilder is best used when the exact number of concatenations is unknown at compile time.
Coding Horror has a good article concerning this question, The Sad Tragedy of Micro-Optimization Theater.
Personally I use StringBuilder when I have more than just one or two strings to concatenate. I'm not sure if there's a real performance hit to be gained, but I've always read and been told that doing a regular concatenation with multiple strings creates an extra copy of the string each time you do it, while using StringBuilder keeps one copy until you call the final ToString() method on it.
Someone's figured out experimentally that the critical number is 6. More than 6 concatenations in a row and you should use a StringBuilder. Can't remember where I found this.
However, note that if you just write this in a line:
"qwert" + "yuiop" + "asdf" + "gh" + "jkl;" + "zxcv" + "bnm" + ",."
That gets converted into one function call (I don't know how to write it in VB.net)
String.Concat("qwert", "yuiop", "asdf", "gh", "jkl;", "zxcv", "bnm", ",.");
So if you're doing all concatenations on one line, then don't bother with StringBuilder because String.Concat effectively will do all the concatenations in one go. It's only if you're doing them in a loop or successively concatenating.
My rule - when you're adding to a string in a For or Foreach loop, use the StringBuilder.