Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!uwvax!dogie.macc.wisc.edu!indri!polyslo!csun!csuna!abcscnge
From: abcscnge@csuna.csun.edu (Scott "The Pseudo-Hacker" Neugroschl)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.wanted
Subject: Re: pattern matching
Keywords: pattern matching
Message-ID: <1974@csuna.csun.edu>
Date: 18 May 89 06:46:42 GMT
References: <2414@cveg.uucp>
Reply-To: abcscnge@csuna.csun.edu (Scott Neugroschl)
Organization: CSU Northridge
Lines: 32

In article <2414@cveg.uucp> mhb@hcx.uucp (MARK H BOTNER) writes:
}
}Can anybody help me with pattern matching?  I'm trying to match
}a string against a pattern such as '*' or '*.*' in the same manner that
}the 'ls' command uses.  I've tried regex and regexp and I've even downloaded 
}regex.Z from uunet.uu.net, but none of these work like I want.  Actually
}I probably only need the wildcard characters '*' and '?', but it wouldn't
}hurt to have the full expression syntax that the 'ls' command uses. Thanks!
} 

Your problem is that reg. exprs and the shell wildcarding are different.

Regular expressions:	.	-- match any single character
			*	-- 0 or more of the preceding regex.

Shell Wildcarding	?	-- match any single character
			*	-- match 0 or more characters.

The wildcarding that "ls uses" is not done by ls.  It is performed by
the shell prior to executing the ls command.  If I were in your shoes,
I would take the shell wildcard, and translate it to regex form:

	? --> .
	* --> .*

and then use the regex stuff.

-- 
Scott "The Pseudo-Hacker" Neugroschl
UUCP:  ...!sm.unisys.com!csun!csuna.csun.edu!abcscnge
-- Beat me, Whip me, make me code in Ada
-- Disclaimers?  We don't need no stinking disclaimers!!!