Syntax strings in different modes

Earlier I wrote a post about syntax strings versus literal strings, which involved me diving into the Uniface manuals to check my facts.  I talked about using $syntax to convert a literal string into a syntax string - very useful!  

However, what I didn't know before was that you can have different modes.  This is something that appears to have been added in Uniface 9.4.01, without me noticing.

There's a lovely table in the Uniface manuals to describe them, but I've tested their examples and I think there are some inaccuracies.  So I'm going to try and lay them out for you here...

Classic

This is the default behaviour, but is also represented by '%[X]'.  In this case, the usual pattern matching rules apply, with syntax codes being used as wildcards to represent patterns of characters.

• Proc code: $syntax("D&G")
• Syntax string: '%[X]%D&G'
• Matches: "DOG", "DIG", "DUG", etc.

You can see the syntax string starts with the mode defined in this case, which is optional for classic mode, because this is the default.

Case Sensitive

In this mode, all characters will only match with characters of the same case.  Also, syntax codes will be treated as their literal characters, and not as wildcards.

• Proc code: $syntax("D&G","CS")
• Resulting syntax string: '%[CS]D%&G%[X]'
• Matches: "D&G"

You can see the syntax string starts with the mode defined in this case, but it also ends with the exit mode, switching back to the default/classic mode.

The manuals suggest that in the proc code the mode is passed in without the double quotes, but I found this had to be a string for it to work.  They also suggest that the mode "S" can be used instead of "CS" for the same thing - I found that only "CS" works in proc code, but you can use '%[CS]' or '%[S]' in syntax strings you write yourself.

Case Insensitive

In this mode, all characters will match with characters of either upper or lower case.  Again, syntax codes will be treated as their literal characters, and not as wildcards.

• Proc code: $syntax("D&G","CI")
• Resulting syntax string: '%[CI]D%&G%[X]'
• Matches: "D&G", "d&g", "D&g" and "d&G"

Again, I had to use a string to define the mode in the proc code, and only "CI" worked, but '%[CI]' and '%[I]' both worked in syntax strings I wrote myself.

NLS Locale

In this mode, all characters will match with characters of either upper or lower case, depending on the National Language Support (NLS) locale that the system is in (can be checked or set using $nlslocale).  Again, syntax codes will be treated as their literal characters, and not as wildcards.

• Proc code: $syntax("i#B","NLS")
• Resulting syntax string: '%[NLS]i%#B%[X]'
• Matches: If your local is Turkish (tr_TR) then "i#B" and "İ#b", but not "I#B"

Once more, I had to use a string to define the mode in the proc code, and only "NLS" worked, but '%[NLS]' and '%[N]' both worked in syntax strings I wrote myself.

Mixing modes

You can also define a combination of modes in a single pattern, something like this...

• Proc code: $syntax("%[CI]D%&%[CS]G%[X]")
• Resulting syntax string: '%[CI]D%&%[CS]G%[X]'
• Matches: "D&G" and "d&G"

There's a slight typo in the manuals with the proc code here, as they have missed the "%" from the beginning!  

Summary: You can use different modes in syntax strings, either specifying the case-sensitivity or relying on the NLS locale, but be careful if you're using $syntax because you'll lose the wildcards.

Validating a numeric string

Today I wanted to validate a numeric string, in the format "YYYYMMDD".  I wasn't particularly worried about checking that there were only 12 months in the year, 28-31 days in the month, or whether the year was in a sensible range, I just wanted to make sure that I'd found a string of 8 numeric digits.


So my first thought was to check the length using $length, an easy place to start...

  if ( $length(str) = 8 )

    ;good start

  endif

Next I went on to think about checking it was numeric, $number being the first function that popped into my head which seemed relevant...

  if ( $length(str) = 8 & $number(str) = str )

    ;pretty good

  endif

But then I remember that this matches even if the string contains spaces, which I didn't want (nor do I think is correct, personally), so I had to add a check for that...

  if ( $length(str) = 8 & $number(str) = str & $scan(str," ") = 0 )

    ;even better

  endif

And then I thought about other "numeric" characters that were allowed.  Depending on your language settings, this could include plus (+), minus (-), fullstop (.) and comma (,) - there may be more as well. 


It was at this point that I thought I must be doing something wrong, this clearly wasn't the best way of doing this.  


Then I remember a suggestion a colleague of mine had made to me when I started this blog - syntax strings.  It's very easy to use a syntax string to pattern match for numbers...

  if ( $length(str) = 8 & str = '#*' )

    ;much better

  endif

I won't go into the details of syntax strings as this is well documented, but suffice to say that a hash (#) means a numeric digit (0-9) and star (*) means any number of them (0-n).  Combined with my length check, this seemed right.  

But then it occurred to me that I could improve this even further...

 if ( str = '########' )

    ;perfect

  endif

In this case I have specified that I require 8 numeric digits, which is exactly what I wanted to check for.  Obviously using a syntax string here has simplified my code and made it much more readable, it's clear to another developer what I'm trying to achieve.

Now usually I'd have settled for the code that was using $length, $number$ and $scan, which would have sufficed and seemed pretty logical as I was writing it.  But noticing how much more elegant this code was got me thinking... How much better does this code perform?  Surely better than all those function calls!

I took the last 3 of my code blocks and ran them 2,000,000 times, giving the following results...

• $length+$number+$scan = 00:07.70, 00:07.70, 00:07.65 (almost 8 seconds)
• $length+syntax string = 00:06.33, 00:06.25, 00:06.27 (over 6 seconds)
• Just the syntax string = 00:05.00, 00:05.09, 00:05.00 (about 5 seconds)

As you can see not only is this code more elegant and therefore more maintainable, but it also performs better.  Given then difference is only a second or two over 2 million iterations, it's not really much of a consideration by itself, but they say every little helps!

Thanks to Dave W for the inspiration which led to this post.

Summary: Don't always jump to using Uniface functions for validation and other checks, it can often be simpler and more efficient to use syntax strings to perform pattern matches.