It was like 4am or some shit. I didn't have time to read it. Nor now.
It's all circumstantial. In the way it was described in OP, RegExp is the first option, imo. When it comes to handling...
Search:
Type: Posts; User: GAMEchief
Search: Search took 0.02 seconds.
- 14 Dec. 2012, 06:23pm
- Replies
- 19
- Views
- 894
It was like 4am or some shit. I didn't have time...
- 14 Dec. 2012, 08:26am
- Replies
- 19
- Views
- 894
I'm going to not read the marked out part. If...
I'm going to not read the marked out part. If there's anything insulting in it, someone tell me, and I'll rip Untinkerbell a new one.
I'm pretty sure RegExp is much faster than an HTML parser, at... - 13 Dec. 2012, 07:23pm
- Replies
- 19
- Views
- 894
It depends on what you are using it for. Not all...
It depends on what you are using it for. Not all input fields can be found with a string search, such as if you don't know the order of the parameters, or if the parameters change each page load....
- 13 Dec. 2012, 06:41am
- Replies
- 19
- Views
- 894
Nothing is good for parsing HTML besides HTML/XML...
Nothing is good for parsing HTML besides HTML/XML parsers.
Also RegExp is way better than doing a string search. - 12 Dec. 2012, 03:58pm
- Replies
- 19
- Views
- 894
Use RegEx?
Use RegEx? <input...name="etc"...value="etc"(?: \/)?>
And then run it again with value and name reversed, if you have to. value="etc"...name="etc" but I doubt they use that markup.
Results 1 to 5 of 5