Follow TV Tropes

Discussion History Creator / HannaBarbera

Go To

[018] BURGINABC Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
I don't think it has to do with line break characters.
to:
I don\'t think it has to do with line break characters.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
The problem I kept running into, and thought I'd finally solved but apparently hadn't, is that it's hard to tell whether a
to:
The problem I kept running into, and thought I\'d finally solved but apparently hadn\'t, is that it\'s hard to tell whether a \"\'\'\'[=]]=]\'\'\'\" belongs to a spoiler tag, or to something else.

The part where I tried to evacuate all the other bracketed expressions into the list, then put them back after stripping the spoiler tags, was supposed to bypass this. It apparently didn\'t work perfectly, even though the results were better than previous attempts, and good enough that I didn\'t notice anything wrong until you started posting corrections. Still, that was clearly \'\'not\'\' the way to solve that problem...

What\'s really needed is a reliable way to ignore a \"\'\'\'[=]]=]\'\'\'\" whenever it has a corresponding \"\'\'\'[=[[=]\'\'\'\" between it and the \"\'\'\'[=[[spoiler:=]\'\'\'\", while otherwise matching the \"\'\'\'[=[[spoiler:=]\'\'\'\" to the nearest \"\'\'\'[=]]=]\'\'\'\".

I think there\'d probably be a simple way to achieve this if I was better at writing Regular Expressions.

Although I could be wrong about that; for all I know it may actually not be possible to do this with pattern matching alone, but only with an actual parser that maps the syntax into a tree.

Heh, if text processing were as easy as it looked, then the ScunthorpeProblem wouldn\'t exist...

Anyway, sorry I didn\'t check more closely before pasting the results back into the site. I thought I\'d gotten it working correctly, but I guess I didn\'t check closely enough.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
I don't think it has to do with line break characters.
to:
I don\'t think it has to do with line break characters.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
The problem I kept running into, and thought I'd finally solved but apparently hadn't, is that it's hard to tell whether a
to:
The problem I kept running into, and thought I\'d finally solved but apparently hadn\'t, is that it\'s hard to tell whether a \"\'\'\'[=]]=]\'\'\'\" belongs to a spoiler tag, or to something else.

The part where I tried to evacuate all the other bracketed expressions into the list, then put them back after stripping the spoiler tags, was supposed to bypass this. It apparently didn\'t work perfectly, even though the results were better than previous attempts, and good enough that I didn\'t notice anything wrong until you started posting corrections. Still, that was clearly \'\'not\'\' the way to solve that problem...

What\'s really needed is a reliable way to ignore a \"\'\'\'[=]]=]\'\'\'\" whenever it has a corresponding \"\'\'\'[=[[=]\'\'\'\" between it and the \"\'\'\'[=[[spoiler:=]\'\'\'\", while otherwise matching the \"\'\'\'[=[[spoiler:=]\'\'\'\" to the nearest \"\'\'\'[=]]=]\'\'\'\".

I think there\'d probably be a simple way to achieve this if I was better at writing Regular Expressions.

Although I could be wrong about that; for all I know it may actually not be possible to do this with pattern matching alone, but only with an \'\'actual parser\'\' that maps the syntax into a tree.

Heh, if text processing were as easy as it looked, then the ScunthorpeProblem wouldn\'t exist...

Anyway, sorry I didn\'t check more closely before pasting the results back into the site. I thought I\'d gotten it working correctly, but I guess I didn\'t check closely enough.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
I don't think it has to do with line break characters.
to:
I don\'t think it has to do with line break characters.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
The problem I kept running into, and thought I'd finally solved but apparently hadn't, is that it's hard to tell whether a
to:
The problem I kept running into, and thought I\'d finally solved but apparently hadn\'t, is that it\'s hard to tell whether a \"\'\'\'[=]]=]\'\'\'\" belongs to a spoiler tag, or to something else.

The part where I tried to evacuate all the other bracketed expressions into the list, then put them back after stripping the spoiler tags, was supposed to bypass this. It apparently didn\'t work perfectly, even though the results were better than previous attempts, and good enough that I didn\'t notice anything wrong until you started posting corrections. Still, that was clearly \'\'not\'\' the way to solve that problem...

What I really need is a reliable way to ignore a \"\'\'\'[=]]=]\'\'\'\" whenever it has a corresponding \"\'\'\'[=[[=]\'\'\'\" between it and the \"\'\'\'[=[[spoiler:=]\'\'\'\", while otherwise matching the \"\'\'\'[=[[spoiler:=]\'\'\'\" to the nearest \"\'\'\'[=]]=]\'\'\'\".

I think there\'d probably be a simple way to achieve this if I was better at writing Regular Expressions.

Although I could be wrong about that; for all I know it may actually not be possible to do this with pattern matching alone, but only with an \'\'actual parser\'\' that maps the syntax into a tree.

Heh, if text processing were as easy as it looked, then the ScunthorpeProblem wouldn\'t exist...

Anyway, sorry I didn\'t check more closely before pasting the results back into the site. I thought I\'d gotten it working correctly, but I guess I didn\'t check closely enough.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
I don't think it has to do with line break characters.
to:
I don\'t think it has to do with line break characters.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
The problem I kept running into, and thought I'd finally solved but apparently hadn't, is that it's hard to tell whether a
to:
The problem I kept running into, and thought I\'d finally solved but apparently hadn\'t, is that it\'s hard to tell whether a \"\'\'\'[=]]=]\'\'\'\" belongs to a spoiler tag, or to something else.

The part where I tried to evacuate all the other bracketed expressions into the list, then put them back after stripping the spoiler tags, was supposed to bypass this. It apparently didn\'t work perfectly, even though the results were better than previous attempts, and good enough that I didn\'t notice anything wrong until you started posting corrections. Still, that was clearly \'\'not\'\' the way to solve that problem...

What I really need is a reliable way to ignore a \"\'\'\'[=]]=]\'\'\'\" whenever there\'s a \"\'\'\'[=[[=]\'\'\'\" between it and the \"\'\'\'[=[[spoiler:=]\'\'\'\", while otherwise matching the \"\'\'\'[=[[spoiler:=]\'\'\'\" to the nearest \"\'\'\'[=]]=]\'\'\'\".

I think there\'d probably be a simple way to achieve this if I was better at writing Regular Expressions.

Although I could be wrong about that; for all I know it may actually not be possible to do this with pattern matching alone, but only with an \'\'actual parser\'\' that maps the syntax into a tree.

Heh, if text processing were as easy as it looked, then the ScunthorpeProblem wouldn\'t exist...

Anyway, sorry I didn\'t check more closely before pasting the results back into the site. I thought I\'d gotten it working correctly, but I guess I didn\'t check closely enough.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
I don't think it has to do with line break characters.
to:
I don\'t think it has to do with line break characters.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
The problem I kept running into, and thought I'd finally solved but apparently hadn't, is that it's hard to tell whether a
to:
The problem I kept running into, and thought I\'d finally solved but apparently hadn\'t, is that it\'s hard to tell whether a \"\'\'\'[=]]=]\'\'\'\" belongs to a spoiler tag, or to something else.

The part where I tried to evacuate all the other bracketed expressions into the list, then put them back after stripping the spoiler tags, was supposed to bypass this. It apparently didn\'t work perfectly, even though the results were better than previous attempts, and good enough that I didn\'t notice anything wrong until you started posting corrections. Still, that was clearly \'\'not\'\' the way to solve that problem...

What I really need is a reliable way to ignore a \"\'\'\'[=]]=]\'\'\'\" whenever there\'s a \"\'\'\'[=[[=]\'\'\'\" between it and the \"\'\'\'[=[[spoiler:=]\'\'\'\", while otherwise matching the \"\'\'\'[=[[spoiler:=]\'\'\'\" to the nearest \"\'\'\'[=]]=]\'\'\'\".

I think there\'d probably be a simple way to solve this if I was better at writing Regular Expressions.

Although I could be wrong about that; for all I know it may actually not be possible to do this with pattern matching alone, but only with an \'\'actual parser\'\' that maps the syntax into a tree.

Heh, if text processing were as easy as it looked, then the ScunthorpeProblem wouldn\'t exist...
Changed line(s) 1 from:
I don't think it has to do with line break characters.
to:
I don\'t think it has to do with line break characters.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
The probably I kept running into, and thought I'd finally solved but apparently hadn't, is that it's hard to tell whether a
to:
The problem I kept running into, and thought I\'d finally solved but apparently hadn\'t, is that it\'s hard to tell whether a \"\'\'\'[=]]=]\'\'\'\" belongs to a spoiler tag, or to something else.

The part where I tried to evacuate all the other bracketed expressions into the list, then put them back after stripping the spoiler tags, was supposed to bypass this. It apparently didn\'t work perfectly, even though the results were better than previous attempts, and good enough that I didn\'t notice anything wrong until you started posting corrections. Still, that was clearly \'\'not\'\' the way to solve that problem...

What I really need is a reliable way to ignore a \"\'\'\'[=]]=]\'\'\'\" whenever there\'s a \"\'\'\'[=[[=]\'\'\'\" between it and the \"\'\'\'[=[[spoiler:=]\'\'\'\", while otherwise matching the \"\'\'\'[=[[spoiler:=]\'\'\'\" to the nearest \"\'\'\'[=]]=]\'\'\'\".

I think there\'d probably be an easy way to solve this if I was better at writing Regular Expressions.

Although I could be wrong about that; for all I know it may actually not be possible to do this with pattern matching alone, but only with an \'\'actual parser\'\' that maps the syntax into a tree.

Heh, if text processing were as easy as it looked, then the ScunthorpeProblem wouldn\'t exist...
Changed line(s) 1 from:
I don't think that's it.
to:
I don\'t think it has to do with line break characters.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
The probably I kept running into, and thought I'd finally solved but apparently hadn't, is that it's hard to tell whether a
to:
The probably I kept running into, and thought I\'d finally solved but apparently hadn\'t, is that it\'s hard to tell whether a \"\'\'\'[=]]=]\'\'\'\" belongs to a spoiler tag, or to something else.

The part where I tried to evacuate all the other bracketed expressions into the list, then put them back after stripping the spoiler tags, was supposed to bypass this. It apparently didn\'t work perfectly, even though the results were better than previous attempts, and good enough that I didn\'t notice anything wrong until you started posting corrections. Still, that was clearly \'\'not\'\' the way to solve that problem...

What I really need is a reliable way to ignore a \"\'\'\'[=]]=]\'\'\'\" whenever there\'s a \"\'\'\'[=[[=]\'\'\'\" between it and the \"\'\'\'[=[[spoiler:=]\'\'\'\", while otherwise matching the \"\'\'\'[=[[spoiler:=]\'\'\'\" to the nearest \"\'\'\'[=]]=]\'\'\'\".

I think there\'d probably be an easy way to solve this if I was better at writing Regular Expressions.

Although I could be wrong about that; for all I know it may actually not be possible to do this with pattern matching alone, but only with an \'\'actual parser\'\' that maps the syntax into a tree.

Heh, if text processing were as easy as it looked, then the ScunthorpeProblem wouldn\'t exist...
Changed line(s) 1 from:
I don't think that's it.
to:
I don\'t think that\'s it.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
The probably I kept running into, and thought I'd finally solved but apparently hadn't, is that it's hard to tell whether a
to:
The probably I kept running into, and thought I\'d finally solved but apparently hadn\'t, is that it\'s hard to tell whether a \"\'\'\'[=]]=]\'\'\'\" belongs to a spoiler tag, or to something else.

The part where I tried to evacuate all the other bracketed expressions into the list, then put them back after stripping the spoiler tags, was supposed to bypass this. It apparently didn\'t work perfectly, even though the results were better than previous attempts, and good enough that I didn\'t notice anything wrong until you started posting corrections. Still, that was clearly \'\'not\'\' the way to solve that problem...

What I really need is a reliable way to ignore a \"\'\'\'[=]]=]\'\'\'\" whenever there\'s a \"\'\'\'[=[[=]\'\'\'\" between it and the \"\'\'\'[=[[spoiler:=]\'\'\'\", while otherwise matching the \"\'\'\'[=[[spoiler:=]\'\'\'\" to the nearest \"\'\'\'[=]]=]\'\'\'\".

I think there\'d probably be an easy way to solve this if I was better at writing Regular Expressions.

Although I could be wrong about that; for all I know it may actually not be possible to do this with pattern matching alone, but only with an \'\'actual parser\'\' that maps the syntax into a tree.

Heh, if text processing were as easy as it looked, then the ScunthorpeProblem wouldn\'t exist...
Changed line(s) 1 from:
I don't think that's it.
to:
I don\'t think that\'s it.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
The probably I kept running into, and thought I'd finally solved but apparently hadn't, is that it's hard to tell whether a
to:
The probably I kept running into, and thought I\'d finally solved but apparently hadn\'t, is that it\'s hard to tell whether a \"\'\'\'[=]]=]\'\'\'\" belongs to a spoiler tag, or to something else.

The part where I tried to evacuate all the other bracketed expressions into the list, then put them back after stripping the spoiler tags, was supposed to bypass this. It apparently didn\'t work perfectly, even though the results were better than previous attempts, and good enough that I didn\'t notice anything wrong until you started posting corrections. Still, that was definitely \'\'not\'\' the way to solve that problem...

What I really need is a reliable way to ignore a \"\'\'\'[=]]=]\'\'\'\" whenever there\'s a \"\'\'\'[=[[=]\'\'\'\" between it and the \"\'\'\'[=[[spoiler:=]\'\'\'\", while otherwise matching the \"\'\'\'[=[[spoiler:=]\'\'\'\" to the nearest \"\'\'\'[=]]=]\'\'\'\".

I think there\'d probably be an easy way to solve this if I was better at writing Regular Expressions.

Although I could be wrong about that; for all I know it may actually not be possible to do this with pattern matching alone, but only with an \'\'actual parser\'\' that maps the syntax into a tree.

Heh, if text processing were as easy as it looked, then the ScunthorpeProblem wouldn\'t exist...
Changed line(s) 1 from:
I don't think that's it.
to:
I don\'t think that\'s it.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
The probably I kept running into, and thought I'd finally solved but apparently hadn't, is that it's hard to tell whether a
to:
The probably I kept running into, and thought I\'d finally solved but apparently hadn\'t, is that it\'s hard to tell whether a \"\'\'\'[=]]=]\'\'\'\" belongs to a spoiler tag, or to something else.

The part where I tried to evacuate all the other bracketed expressions into the list, then put them back after stripping the spoiler tags, was supposed to bypass this. It apparently didn\'t work perfectly, even though the results were better than previous attempts, and good enough that I didn\'t notice anything wrong until you started posting corrections. Still, that was definitely \'\'not\'\' the way to solve that problem...

What I really need is a reliable way to ignore a \"\'\'\'[=]]=]\'\'\'\" whenever there\'s a \"\'\'\'[=[[=]\'\'\'\" between it and the \"\'\'\'[=[[spoiler:=]\'\'\'\", while otherwise matching the spoiler to the nearest \"\'\'\'[=]]=]\'\'\'\".

I think there\'d probably be an easy way to solve this if I was better at writing Regular Expressions.

Although I could be wrong about that; for all I know it may actually not be possible to do this with pattern matching alone, but only with an \'\'actual parser\'\' that maps the syntax into a tree.

Heh, if text processing were as easy as it looked, then the ScunthorpeProblem wouldn\'t exist...
Changed line(s) 1 from:
I don't think that's it.
to:
I don\'t think that\'s it.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
The probably I kept running into, and thought I'd finally solved but apparently hadn't, is that it's hard to tell whether a
to:
The probably I kept running into, and thought I\'d finally solved but apparently hadn\'t, is that it\'s hard to tell whether a \"\'\'\'[=]]=]\'\'\'\" belongs to a spoiler tag, or to something else.

The part where I tried to evacuate all the other bracketed expressions into the list, then put them back after stripping the spoiler tags, was supposed to bypass this. It apparently didn\'t work perfectly, even though the results were better than previous attempts, and good enough that I didn\'t notice anything wrong until you started posting corrections. Still, that was definitely \'\'not\'\' the way to solve that problem...

What I really need is a reliable way to ignore a \"\'\'\'[=]]=]\'\'\'\" whenever there\'s a \"\'\'\'[=[[=]\'\'\'\" between it and the \"\'\'\'[=[[spoiler:=]\'\'\'\"

I think there\'d probably be an easy way to solve this if I was better at writing Regular Expressions.

Although I could be wrong about that; for all I know it may actually not be possible to do this with pattern matching alone, but only with an \'\'actual parser\'\' that maps the syntax into a tree.

Heh, if text processing were as easy as it looked, then the ScunthorpeProblem wouldn\'t exist...
Changed line(s) 1 from:
I don't think that's it.
to:
I don\'t think that\'s it.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
The probably I kept running into, and thought I'd finally solved but apparently hadn't, is that it's hard to tell whether a
to:
The probably I kept running into, and thought I\'d finally solved but apparently hadn\'t, is that it\'s hard to tell whether a \"\'\'\'[=]]=]\'\'\'\" belongs to a spoiler tag, or to something else.

The part where I tried to evacuate all the other bracketed expressions into the list, then put them back after stripping the spoiler tags, was supposed to bypass this. It apparently didn\'t work perfectly, even though the results were better than previous attempts, and good enough that I didn\'t notice anything wrong until you started posting corrections. Still, clearly that was not the way to solve that problem...

What I really need is a reliable way to ignore a \"\'\'\'[=]]=]\'\'\'\" whenever there\'s a \"\'\'\'[=[[=]\'\'\'\" between it and the \"\'\'\'[=[[spoiler:=]\'\'\'\"

I think there\'d probably be an easy way to solve this if I was better at writing Regular Expressions.

Although I could be wrong about that; for all I know it may actually not be possible to do this with pattern matching alone, but only with an \'\'actual parser\'\' that maps the syntax into a tree.

Heh, if text processing were as easy as it looked, then the ScunthorpeProblem wouldn\'t exist...
Changed line(s) 1 from:
I don't think that's it.
to:
I don\'t think that\'s it.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
The probably I kept running into, and thought I'd finally solved but apparently hadn't, is that it's hard to tell whether a
to:
The probably I kept running into, and thought I\'d finally solved but apparently hadn\'t, is that it\'s hard to tell whether a \"\'\'\'[=]]=]\'\'\'\" belongs to a spoiler tag, or to something else.

The part where I tried to evacuate all the other bracketed expressions into the list, then put them back after stripping the spoiler tags, was supposed to bypass this. It apparently didn\'t work perfectly, even though the results were better than previous attempts, and good enough that I didn\'t notice anything wrong until you started posting corrections.

What I really need is a reliable way to ignore a \"\'\'\'[=]]=]\'\'\'\" whenever there\'s a \"\'\'\'[=[[=]\'\'\'\" between it and the \"\'\'\'[=[[spoiler:=]\'\'\'\"

I think there\'d probably be an easy way to solve this if I was better at writing Regular Expressions.

Although I could be wrong about that; for all I know it may actually not be possible to do this with pattern matching alone, but only with an \'\'actual parser\'\' that maps the syntax into a tree.

Heh, if text processing were as easy as it looked, then the ScunthorpeProblem wouldn\'t exist...
Changed line(s) 1 from:
I don't think that's it.
to:
I don\'t think that\'s it.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
The probably I kept running into, and thought I'd finally solved but apparently hadn't, is that it's hard to tell whether a
to:
The probably I kept running into, and thought I\'d finally solved but apparently hadn\'t, is that it\'s hard to tell whether a \"\'\'\'[=]]=]\'\'\'\" belongs to a spoiler tag, or to something else.

The part where I tried to evacuate all the other bracketed expressions into the list, then put them back after stripping the spoiler tags, was supposed to bypass this. It apparently didn\'t work perfectly, even though the results were better than previous attempts, and good enough that I didn\'t notice anything wrong until you started posting corrections.

What I really need is a reliable way to ignore a \"\'\'\'[=]]=]\'\'\'\" whenever there\'s a \"\'\'\'[=[[=]\'\'\'\" between it and the \"\'\'\'[=[[spoiler:=]\'\'\'\"

I think there\'d probably be an easy way to solve this if I was better at writing Regular Expressions. Although I could be wrong; for all I know it may actually not be possible to do this with pattern matching alone, but only with an \'\'actual parser\'\' that maps the syntax into a tree.

Heh, if text processing were as easy as it looked, then the ScunthorpeProblem wouldn\'t exist...
Changed line(s) 1 from:
I don't think that's it.
to:
I don\'t think that\'s it.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
The probably I kept running into, and thought I'd finally solved but apparently hadn't, is that it's hard to tell whether a '''@@[=]]=]@@''' belongs to a spoiler tag, or to something else.
to:
The probably I kept running into, and thought I\'d finally solved but apparently hadn\'t, is that it\'s hard to tell whether a \"\'\'\'[=]]=]\'\'\'\" belongs to a spoiler tag, or to something else.

The part where I tried to evacuate all the other bracketed expressions into the list, then put them back after stripping the spoiler tags, was supposed to bypass this. It apparently didn\'t work perfectly, even though the results were better than previous attempts, and good enough that I didn\'t notice anything wrong until you started posting corrections.

What I really need is a reliable way to ignore a \"\'\'\'[=]]=]\'\'\'\" whenever there\'s a \"\'\'\'[=[[=]\'\'\'\" between it and the \"\'\'\'[=[[spoiler:=]\'\'\'\"

I think there\'d probably be an easy way to solve this if I was better at writing Regular Expressions. Although I could be wrong; for all I know it may actually not be possible to do this with pattern matching alone, but only with an \'\'actual parser\'\' that maps the syntax into a tree.

Heh, if text processing were as easy as it looked, then TheScunthorpeProblem wouldn\'t be a trope...
Changed line(s) 1 from:
I don't think that's it.
to:
I don\'t think that\'s it.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
The probably I kept running into, and thought I'd finally solved but apparently hadn't, is that it's hard to tell whether a '''@@[=]]=]@@''' belongs to a spoiler tag, or to something else.
to:
The probably I kept running into, and thought I\'d finally solved but apparently hadn\'t, is that it\'s hard to tell whether a \'\'\'@@[=]]=]@@\'\'\' belongs to a spoiler tag, or to something else.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
I don't think that's it.
to:
I don\'t think that\'s it.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
The probably I kept running into, and thought I'd finally solved but apparently hadn't, is that it's hard to tell whether a '''@@[=]]=]@@''' belongs to a spoiler tag, or to something else.
to:
The probably I kept running into, and thought I\'d finally solved but apparently hadn\'t, is that it\'s hard to tell whether a \'\'\'@@[=]]=]@@\'\'\' belongs to a spoiler tag, or to something else.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
I don't think that's it.
to:
I don\'t think that\'s it.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
The probably I kept running into, and thought I'd finally solved but apparently hadn't, is that it's hard to tell whether a @@[=]]=]@@ belongs to a spoiler tag, or to something else.
to:
The probably I kept running into, and thought I\'d finally solved but apparently hadn\'t, is that it\'s hard to tell whether a \'\'\'@@[=]]=]@@\'\'\' belongs to a spoiler tag, or to something else.
Top