From |@wrence@m|ch@e| @end|ng |rom gene@com  Mon Sep  2 23:21:26 2019
From: |@wrence@m|ch@e| @end|ng |rom gene@com (Michael Lawrence)
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2019 14:21:26 -0700
Subject: [Rd] Feature request: non-dropping regmatches/strextract
In-Reply-To: <262664965.1504987.1567449515858@mail.yahoo.com>
References: <2012653205.221487.1565848601638.ref@mail.yahoo.com>
 <2012653205.221487.1565848601638@mail.yahoo.com>
 <CALK03d2cCoAboDBmr5dhR9+kjGh5=Eg5QAHmKc-qJYm_iGO5mw@mail.gmail.com>
 <102772513.32513.1567113562904@mail.yahoo.com>
 <CAOQ5NydKtocPcz-3zVfZMo5K0jkbsF+R2iBvzzPO7fiP=+ZHQg@mail.gmail.com>
 <1828482902.51488.1567117617120@mail.yahoo.com>
 <CAOQ5NycHctjtNee0uWFKDyGehzWBC6-WXJbe4QxTkOQZ=k=3Xg@mail.gmail.com>
 <262664965.1504987.1567449515858@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <CAOQ5NycLyr1i67jVmzwOmX6+r2zdPwoF38W0wqHqno+kKKY_=A@mail.gmail.com>

After some discussion within R core, we decided that a "nomatch"
argument on regmatches() may be a good initial step. We might add a
new function later that combines the regexpr() and regmatches() steps.
The gregexpr() and regexec() inputs are both lists so it's not clear
whether a "nomatch" value would be relevant (the elements are empty)
in those cases.

On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 11:38 AM Cyclic Group Z_1
<cyclicgroup-z1 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I think that's a good reason for not including this in regmatches; you're right, its name is somewhat suggestive of yielding matches. Also, that sounds like a great design for strcapture with an atomic prototype.
>
> Best,
> CG



-- 
Michael Lawrence
Scientist, Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
Genentech, A Member of the Roche Group
Office +1 (650) 225-7760
michafla at gene.com

Join Genentech on LinkedIn | Twitter | Facebook | Instagram | YouTube



[Rd] Feature request: non-dropping regmatches/strextract
Michael Lawrence