parsing text

[yang__lee]

Hi,

I hope you may help me.

Please check the attached text file.
Actually its a report file with some headers information
and them report is in tabular format. I want to parse each row
and get the values.

I think strtok won't work here.

There are no tabs in between the column values they are spaces.
Column values them selves contain spaces but they are single spaces.
Minimum two spaces are there between column values.

can you suggest some algorithm in C or any other method to get each
column value.

In excel I try to create a delimited file but its unsuccessful.

Thanks,

lee


following content is in a text file. Copy in a text file
Keep wordwrap off
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------




DATE: 04/07/2007

TMK

MTC_PROC REPORT

Area: KTO
WRKPCK: KTO


PROCESS PNAME FEANAME CEB MCO DPNUM NM_ITM
ERROR
TXT_GUI ERROID
_______ ___________ _____________ ___ ___ ______ __________
________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________ ______

RECKKON 206 DEVICE 007 997 532533 532533
Invalid source. BREAK needed. Count: 1501-1505
Source: -98 0201

RECKKON U206 DEVICE 007 997 532533 532533
Invalid source. BREAK needed. Count:
1421,1726-1730 Source: -98 0201

RECKKON F77 CROSS CNNCT 009 997 520624 520624
Feeder feature. Count: AM992,651-900
Source: 520619 7310

RECKKON F1727 X-MIC 009 997 521184 521184
Sourced Out. Count: SA5211,1-1800
Source: 0 0206

RECKKON F115 CROSS CNNCT 009 997 522306 522306
provide feed. Count:
1400,1001-1100 Source: 522333 7310

 

[mark_bluemel]

Hi,

I hope you may help me.

Please check the attached text file.
Actually its a report file with some headers information
and them report is in tabular format. I want to parse each row
and get the values.

I think strtok won't work here.

There are no tabs in between the column values they are spaces.
Column values them selves contain spaces but they are single spaces.
Minimum two spaces are there between column values.

can you suggest some algorithm in C or any other method to get each
column value.

You know what data is in what character positions, so what's wrong
with extracting the data on that basis?

strncpy() would do for starters. More complex code could wrap this to
strip trailing spaces, convert to numeric format, etc...

 

[Martin Ambuhl]

Hi,

I hope you may help me.

Please check the attached text file.

No, thank you. Do not post attachments to text newsgroups.

 

[Richard Tobin]

Please check the attached text file.

[/QUOTE]

No, thank you. Do not post attachments to text newsgroups.

In fact he didn't post an attachment. He just appended the text to
his message.

-- Richard

 

[Martin Ambuhl]

No, thank you. Do not post attachments to text newsgroups.

In fact he didn't post an attachment. He just appended the text to
his message.[/QUOTE]

As silly as it may be, I tend to believe posters unless this has already
been shown to be an error. At the point that (e-mail address removed) (an
attribution you unaccountably removed) wrote that there was an attached
file, there was no reason to doubt his word. Silly me.

In the same way, if I encountered your post without known earlier
context, I might think that I had writtenI would wonder when I did it, and why there were extra '>'s, but you
claimed that I wrote, so I must have.

 

[user923005]

You have two formats, one for the header and one for the body.

Write a function to parse the header and another function to parse the
body.

Do not write one function to do both jobs. It is also easy to
recognize the transition between header and body so write a
controlling function that sees the header and calls the header parser
and then sees the body and calls the body parser.

Your question is really more appropriate for since you do not have a C question but a programming one.

Personally, I would parse the header and then throw the body into a
text file and use an ODBC text file connection. But that's neither
here nor there and it's not even topical on
bcnu

 

[Richard Tobin]

In fact he didn't post an attachment. He just appended the text to
his message.

[/QUOTE]

As silly as it may be, I tend to believe posters unless this has already
been shown to be an error. At the point that (e-mail address removed) (an
attribution you unaccountably removed) wrote that there was an attached
file, there was no reason to doubt his word. Silly me.

"Attached" doesn't only mean "MIME attachment". The phrase "the
attached X" has been around for a long time.

In the same way, if I encountered your post without known earlier
context, I might think that I had written
I would wonder when I did it, and why there were extra '>'s, but you
claimed that I wrote, so I must have.

When you become familiar with Usenet quoting conventions, you will not
have this problem.

-- Richard

 

[Martin Ambuhl]

When you become familiar with Usenet quoting conventions, you will not
have this problem.

When you become familiar with Usenet quoting conventions, you will no
longer snip attributions aways from text your are quoting. Your
practice is at least cavalier and sloppy; it is possibly dishonest as well.

 

[Ian Collins]

When you become familiar with Usenet quoting conventions, you will not
have this problem.

Your conventions, or everyone else's?

 

[Default User]

You have two formats, one for the header and one for the body.

I do?

Write a function to parse the header and another function to parse the
body.

Why would I want to do that?

Do not write one function to do both jobs. It is also easy to
recognize the transition between header and body so write a
controlling function that sees the header and calls the header parser
and then sees the body and calls the body parser.

If you say so!

Your question is really more appropriate for since you do not have a C question but a programming one.

I didn't know I had a question.

Personally, I would parse the header and then throw the body into a
text file and use an ODBC text file connection. But that's neither
here nor there and it's not even topical on news:comp.lang.c

You're the one who brought it up.


Unless, perhaps, this was meant as a reply to some OTHER person. As
there's no quotes are attributions, that's rank speculation on my part.




Brian

 

[Richard Tobin]

When you become familiar with Usenet quoting conventions, you will not
have this problem.

[/QUOTE]

Your conventions, or everyone else's?

It should be obvious that there are various conventions for quoting
used on Usenet. Regular readers become familiar with the mostly
commonly used ones.

I have no plans to continue this discussion, since I doubt any of us
will change our views.

-- Richard

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Richard Tobin said:

Your conventions, or everyone else's?

It should be obvious that there are various conventions for quoting
used on Usenet. Regular readers become familiar with the mostly
commonly used ones.[/QUOTE]

Come on, Richard - you did snip an attrib, now, didn't you?

Surely you and Martin are both above this sort of bickering.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Default User said:

Unless, perhaps, this was meant as a reply to some OTHER person. As
there's no quotes are attributions, that's rank speculation on my
part.

It wasn't intended for you, as we can deduce quickly and easily from the
available information.

Firstly, it was written in English, so it's not intended for Pedro
Garcia, a Spaniard living in Barcelona who has no English. Secondly, it
was posted in comp.lang.c, so it is not intended for Her Majesty Queen
Elizabeth II, who - much to her regret - doesn't have time to read
comp.lang.c. Thirdly, it was recommending a modular approach to
programming, so it was not intended for me, because the author knows I
already favour such an approach so it would have been pointless to try
to persuade me.

So if it's not intended for Pedro, Elizabeth or myself, it must have
been intended for someone else. And if it was intended for someone
else, it can't have been intended for you.

 

[Richard Bos]

Ian Collins <[email protected]> wrote:

[ No, he didn't; the above attribution is a lie. ]

It should be obvious that there are various conventions for quoting
used on Usenet. Regular readers become familiar with the mostly
commonly used ones.

However, _the_ convention is not to snip attribution lines when material
from that poster is still in the post. Honest posters abide by this
convention.

Richard

 

[Richard Tobin]

It should be obvious that there are various conventions for quoting
used on Usenet. Regular readers become familiar with the mostly
commonly used ones.

[/QUOTE]

Come on, Richard - you did snip an attrib, now, didn't you?

Of course. I usually only include the attribution of the article I'm
replying to. And that is a common Usenet convention that regular
users should be used to. It's obvious from the angle brackets when
the quoted text contains older quoted text, and I consider it a waste
of space - and a reduction in readability - to include attributions
all the way back. If someone wants to trace the history of a
discussion, they can look at the parent article in their newsreader or
on Google. If that doesn't work, or is too much trouble, well it's
only Usenet isn't it?

I've been following this convention for 20 years, and no-one has
complained about it except a few posters in comp.lang.c in the lasat
year.

-- Richard

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Richard Tobin said:

Come on, Richard - you did snip an attrib, now, didn't you?

Of course. I usually only include the attribution of the article I'm
replying to. And that is a common Usenet convention that regular
users should be used to.[/QUOTE]

First I've heard of it (as a convention, anyway). I must confess that
I've often been tempted to do likewise, but always refrained (as far as
I can recall) because it is not my desire to flout what I perceive to
be useful and meaningful conventions.

I've been following this convention for 20 years, and no-one has
complained about it except a few posters in comp.lang.c in the lasat
year.

It's not something I generally complain about myself, on the whole, but
it did seem to me on this occasion that Martin had a point. I also
think the whole thing is a

| *** ** |
| ***** |------+
| ****** |----+ |
| \ \ \ \ | | |
| \ \ \ \ | | |
| \ \ \ |----+ |
| \ \ \ |------+
+---------+

Don't you?

 

[Default User]

Default User said:



It wasn't intended for you, as we can deduce quickly and easily from
the available information.

Ah, is that so? I saw little or no information that indicated it wasn't
directed towards me. If not me, the person reading it, then who? There
was no information along that line.

Seriously, I could have given Mr. Corbit the standard post that we give
rank newbies that violate netiquette by failing to quote, but I know
and you know that he knows better.





Brian

 

[user923005]

Default User said:

<snip>




It wasn't intended for you, as we can deduce quickly and easily from the
available information.

Firstly, it was written in English, so it's not intended for Pedro
Garcia, a Spaniard living in Barcelona who has no English. Secondly, it
was posted in comp.lang.c, so it is not intended for Her Majesty Queen
Elizabeth II, who - much to her regret - doesn't have time to read
comp.lang.c. Thirdly, it was recommending a modular approach to
programming, so it was not intended for me, because the author knows I
already favour such an approach so it would have been pointless to try
to persuade me.

So if it's not intended for Pedro, Elizabeth or myself, it must have
been intended for someone else. And if it was intended for someone
else, it can't have been intended for you.

My format could have included some context. Some day, in the
hypothetical future, we may lose all threading context to the
archives. Some future net denizen may download my
post and (lacking sufficient context) find it rather puzzling (though
no more puzzling than the initial response). At any rate, I consider
it a reminder to include enough context so that the post may be read
on its own. Sometimes, I am only thinking of solving the problem of
the O.P. and perhaps that is short-sighted.

 

[Default User]

My format could have included some context. Some day, in the
hypothetical future, we may lose all threading context to the
archives. Some future net denizen may download my
post and (lacking sufficient context) find it rather puzzling (though
no more puzzling than the initial response). At any rate, I consider
it a reminder to include enough context so that the post may be read
on its own.

While my post had a somewhat mocking tone, that was mainly because I
felt you deserved more than "quote context dummy!!!"

In fact, I really didn't know who it was addressed towards. I run my
newsreader set to display only unread messages, and the original was no
longer in my view, having been read in some previous session. Now, I
could have clicked up and switched the view to show all messages, and
found the original, but chose not to.

Some newsreaders have the ability to traverse the message tree even if
they aren't currently displayed. As far as I can tell, mine does not do
that.

Sometimes, I am only thinking of solving the problem of
the O.P. and perhaps that is short-sighted.

That can happen.




Brian

 

[Mark McIntyre]

Come on, Richard - you did snip an attrib, now, didn't you?

Of course. I usually only include the attribution of the article I'm
replying to. And that is a common Usenet convention that regular
users should be used to. [/QUOTE]

I'm a regular user of this and many other groups, and I've never heard
of this so-called common convention before.

and I consider it a waste
of space - and a reduction in readability - to include attributions
all the way back.

Fair enough, if the context and attributions aren't germane.

If someone wants to trace the history of a
discussion, they can look at the parent article in their newsreader or
on Google.

I strongly disagree with this. You have no way to know the retention
of your readers' newsreaders or servers, and parent articles may be
long gone. And expecting me to fire up another app and run another
search is absurd.
--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan