Notepad++ delete until colon for every line with replace all
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box;
}
18
I'm using Notepad++ Replace box to delete text to the left of the colon (:) in all 3 lines of my file:
TRACE: do
TRACE: re
TRACE: mi
I'm using ^[^:]+: in the 'Find what:' field and 'Replace with:' is empty but when it goes to the next line it automatically selects and deletes what was output in the previous line, so when I run Replace All it results in:
mi
It should show:
do
re
mi
notepad++ regex
asked Apr 2 at 12:28
teoweyteowey
937
add a comment |
18
I'm using Notepad++ Replace box to delete text to the left of the colon (:) in all 3 lines of my file:
TRACE: do
TRACE: re
TRACE: mi
I'm using ^[^:]+: in the 'Find what:' field and 'Replace with:' is empty but when it goes to the next line it automatically selects and deletes what was output in the previous line, so when I run Replace All it results in:
mi
It should show:
do
re
mi
notepad++ regex
asked Apr 2 at 12:28
teoweyteowey
937
add a comment |
18
18
18
1
I'm using Notepad++ Replace box to delete text to the left of the colon (:) in all 3 lines of my file:
TRACE: do
TRACE: re
TRACE: mi
I'm using ^[^:]+: in the 'Find what:' field and 'Replace with:' is empty but when it goes to the next line it automatically selects and deletes what was output in the previous line, so when I run Replace All it results in:
mi
It should show:
do
re
mi
notepad++ regex
asked Apr 2 at 12:28
teoweyteowey
937
I'm using Notepad++ Replace box to delete text to the left of the colon (:) in all 3 lines of my file:
TRACE: do
TRACE: re
TRACE: mi
I'm using ^[^:]+: in the 'Find what:' field and 'Replace with:' is empty but when it goes to the next line it automatically selects and deletes what was output in the previous line, so when I run Replace All it results in:
mi
It should show:
do
re
mi
notepad++ regex
notepad++ regex
asked Apr 2 at 12:28
teoweyteowey
937
asked Apr 2 at 12:28
teoweyteowey
937
asked Apr 2 at 12:28
teoweyteowey
937
asked Apr 2 at 12:28
teoweyteowey
937
asked Apr 2 at 12:28
teoweyteowey
937
937
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
22
It's a "bug" ("feature") of Notepad++, you have to capture the rest of the line and use the value in replace:
- Find what:
^[^:]+:(.+)$
- Replace with:
$1
- check Wrap around
- check Regular expression
- UNCHECK
. matches newline - Replace all
Another way is:
- Find what:
^[^:rn]+:
- Replace with:
LEAVE EMPTY
answered Apr 2 at 12:34
TotoToto
4,419101328
5
+1. Originally, I though NP++'s implementation was fine, but I tested this Python example, and found that NP++ is indeed irregular by retaining position after a lookbehind is evaluated. Learn something new every day! I lack time now, but I can probably file an issue in their GitHub repo later (there's no related issue currently open).
– Graham
Apr 2 at 14:27
3
Not to mention that it's misleading because it's inconsistent with other components of the find-and-replace tab, like what's shown to the user when previewing a change via the "Find" or "Mark". (Side note: I find "Mark" to be particularly useful when drafting regex to ensure I haven't made a silly mistake.) Really I'm starting to think I should switch text editors or start contributing my own bug fixes to Notepad++, since there are actually a surprising number of miscellaneous issues. But I guess that's probably the case for any dedicated program user like myself.
– Graham
Apr 2 at 14:56
3
I like the second approach better -- it looks like it should work in almost any "altered implementation" of regex interpretation.
– Carl Witthoft
Apr 2 at 17:43
2
Even shorter, by using a reluctant quantifier: Replace^.*?:with empty. (Docs)
– Nayuki
Apr 2 at 18:46
This has to be a bug.^[^:]*?:and^.*?:should do exactly the same thing, but they don't.^[^:rn]*?:does work correctly though, so I'd guess that's where the issue is, somehow. The same issue occurs with^.*?:if you check the ".matches newline" box.
– Yay295
Apr 3 at 5:40
|
show 2 more comments
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "3"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
draft saved
draft discarded
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsuperuser.com%2fquestions%2f1420401%2fnotepad-delete-until-colon-for-every-line-with-replace-all%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
22
It's a "bug" ("feature") of Notepad++, you have to capture the rest of the line and use the value in replace:
- Find what:
^[^:]+:(.+)$
- Replace with:
$1
- check Wrap around
- check Regular expression
- UNCHECK
. matches newline - Replace all
Another way is:
- Find what:
^[^:rn]+:
- Replace with:
LEAVE EMPTY
answered Apr 2 at 12:34
TotoToto
4,419101328
5
+1. Originally, I though NP++'s implementation was fine, but I tested this Python example, and found that NP++ is indeed irregular by retaining position after a lookbehind is evaluated. Learn something new every day! I lack time now, but I can probably file an issue in their GitHub repo later (there's no related issue currently open).
– Graham
Apr 2 at 14:27
3
Not to mention that it's misleading because it's inconsistent with other components of the find-and-replace tab, like what's shown to the user when previewing a change via the "Find" or "Mark". (Side note: I find "Mark" to be particularly useful when drafting regex to ensure I haven't made a silly mistake.) Really I'm starting to think I should switch text editors or start contributing my own bug fixes to Notepad++, since there are actually a surprising number of miscellaneous issues. But I guess that's probably the case for any dedicated program user like myself.
– Graham
Apr 2 at 14:56
3
I like the second approach better -- it looks like it should work in almost any "altered implementation" of regex interpretation.
– Carl Witthoft
Apr 2 at 17:43
2
Even shorter, by using a reluctant quantifier: Replace^.*?:with empty. (Docs)
– Nayuki
Apr 2 at 18:46
This has to be a bug.^[^:]*?:and^.*?:should do exactly the same thing, but they don't.^[^:rn]*?:does work correctly though, so I'd guess that's where the issue is, somehow. The same issue occurs with^.*?:if you check the ".matches newline" box.
– Yay295
Apr 3 at 5:40
|
show 2 more comments
22
It's a "bug" ("feature") of Notepad++, you have to capture the rest of the line and use the value in replace:
- Find what:
^[^:]+:(.+)$
- Replace with:
$1
- check Wrap around
- check Regular expression
- UNCHECK
. matches newline - Replace all
Another way is:
- Find what:
^[^:rn]+:
- Replace with:
LEAVE EMPTY
answered Apr 2 at 12:34
TotoToto
4,419101328
5
+1. Originally, I though NP++'s implementation was fine, but I tested this Python example, and found that NP++ is indeed irregular by retaining position after a lookbehind is evaluated. Learn something new every day! I lack time now, but I can probably file an issue in their GitHub repo later (there's no related issue currently open).
– Graham
Apr 2 at 14:27
3
Not to mention that it's misleading because it's inconsistent with other components of the find-and-replace tab, like what's shown to the user when previewing a change via the "Find" or "Mark". (Side note: I find "Mark" to be particularly useful when drafting regex to ensure I haven't made a silly mistake.) Really I'm starting to think I should switch text editors or start contributing my own bug fixes to Notepad++, since there are actually a surprising number of miscellaneous issues. But I guess that's probably the case for any dedicated program user like myself.
– Graham
Apr 2 at 14:56
3
I like the second approach better -- it looks like it should work in almost any "altered implementation" of regex interpretation.
– Carl Witthoft
Apr 2 at 17:43
2
Even shorter, by using a reluctant quantifier: Replace^.*?:with empty. (Docs)
– Nayuki
Apr 2 at 18:46
This has to be a bug.^[^:]*?:and^.*?:should do exactly the same thing, but they don't.^[^:rn]*?:does work correctly though, so I'd guess that's where the issue is, somehow. The same issue occurs with^.*?:if you check the ".matches newline" box.
– Yay295
Apr 3 at 5:40
|
show 2 more comments
22
22
22
It's a "bug" ("feature") of Notepad++, you have to capture the rest of the line and use the value in replace:
- Find what:
^[^:]+:(.+)$
- Replace with:
$1
- check Wrap around
- check Regular expression
- UNCHECK
. matches newline - Replace all
Another way is:
- Find what:
^[^:rn]+:
- Replace with:
LEAVE EMPTY
answered Apr 2 at 12:34
TotoToto
4,419101328
It's a "bug" ("feature") of Notepad++, you have to capture the rest of the line and use the value in replace:
- Find what:
^[^:]+:(.+)$
- Replace with:
$1
- check Wrap around
- check Regular expression
- UNCHECK
. matches newline - Replace all
Another way is:
- Find what:
^[^:rn]+:
- Replace with:
LEAVE EMPTY
answered Apr 2 at 12:34
TotoToto
4,419101328
answered Apr 2 at 12:34
TotoToto
4,419101328
answered Apr 2 at 12:34
TotoToto
4,419101328
answered Apr 2 at 12:34
TotoToto
4,419101328
4,419101328
5
+1. Originally, I though NP++'s implementation was fine, but I tested this Python example, and found that NP++ is indeed irregular by retaining position after a lookbehind is evaluated. Learn something new every day! I lack time now, but I can probably file an issue in their GitHub repo later (there's no related issue currently open).
– Graham
Apr 2 at 14:27
3
Not to mention that it's misleading because it's inconsistent with other components of the find-and-replace tab, like what's shown to the user when previewing a change via the "Find" or "Mark". (Side note: I find "Mark" to be particularly useful when drafting regex to ensure I haven't made a silly mistake.) Really I'm starting to think I should switch text editors or start contributing my own bug fixes to Notepad++, since there are actually a surprising number of miscellaneous issues. But I guess that's probably the case for any dedicated program user like myself.
– Graham
Apr 2 at 14:56
3
I like the second approach better -- it looks like it should work in almost any "altered implementation" of regex interpretation.
– Carl Witthoft
Apr 2 at 17:43
2
Even shorter, by using a reluctant quantifier: Replace^.*?:with empty. (Docs)
– Nayuki
Apr 2 at 18:46
This has to be a bug.^[^:]*?:and^.*?:should do exactly the same thing, but they don't.^[^:rn]*?:does work correctly though, so I'd guess that's where the issue is, somehow. The same issue occurs with^.*?:if you check the ".matches newline" box.
– Yay295
Apr 3 at 5:40
|
show 2 more comments
5
+1. Originally, I though NP++'s implementation was fine, but I tested this Python example, and found that NP++ is indeed irregular by retaining position after a lookbehind is evaluated. Learn something new every day! I lack time now, but I can probably file an issue in their GitHub repo later (there's no related issue currently open).
– Graham
Apr 2 at 14:27
3
Not to mention that it's misleading because it's inconsistent with other components of the find-and-replace tab, like what's shown to the user when previewing a change via the "Find" or "Mark". (Side note: I find "Mark" to be particularly useful when drafting regex to ensure I haven't made a silly mistake.) Really I'm starting to think I should switch text editors or start contributing my own bug fixes to Notepad++, since there are actually a surprising number of miscellaneous issues. But I guess that's probably the case for any dedicated program user like myself.
– Graham
Apr 2 at 14:56
3
I like the second approach better -- it looks like it should work in almost any "altered implementation" of regex interpretation.
– Carl Witthoft
Apr 2 at 17:43
2
Even shorter, by using a reluctant quantifier: Replace^.*?:with empty. (Docs)
– Nayuki
Apr 2 at 18:46
This has to be a bug.^[^:]*?:and^.*?:should do exactly the same thing, but they don't.^[^:rn]*?:does work correctly though, so I'd guess that's where the issue is, somehow. The same issue occurs with^.*?:if you check the ".matches newline" box.
– Yay295
Apr 3 at 5:40
5
5
+1. Originally, I though NP++'s implementation was fine, but I tested this Python example, and found that NP++ is indeed irregular by retaining position after a lookbehind is evaluated. Learn something new every day! I lack time now, but I can probably file an issue in their GitHub repo later (there's no related issue currently open).
– Graham
Apr 2 at 14:27
+1. Originally, I though NP++'s implementation was fine, but I tested this Python example, and found that NP++ is indeed irregular by retaining position after a lookbehind is evaluated. Learn something new every day! I lack time now, but I can probably file an issue in their GitHub repo later (there's no related issue currently open).
– Graham
Apr 2 at 14:27
3
3
Not to mention that it's misleading because it's inconsistent with other components of the find-and-replace tab, like what's shown to the user when previewing a change via the "Find" or "Mark". (Side note: I find "Mark" to be particularly useful when drafting regex to ensure I haven't made a silly mistake.) Really I'm starting to think I should switch text editors or start contributing my own bug fixes to Notepad++, since there are actually a surprising number of miscellaneous issues. But I guess that's probably the case for any dedicated program user like myself.
– Graham
Apr 2 at 14:56
Not to mention that it's misleading because it's inconsistent with other components of the find-and-replace tab, like what's shown to the user when previewing a change via the "Find" or "Mark". (Side note: I find "Mark" to be particularly useful when drafting regex to ensure I haven't made a silly mistake.) Really I'm starting to think I should switch text editors or start contributing my own bug fixes to Notepad++, since there are actually a surprising number of miscellaneous issues. But I guess that's probably the case for any dedicated program user like myself.
– Graham
Apr 2 at 14:56
3
3
I like the second approach better -- it looks like it should work in almost any "altered implementation" of regex interpretation.
– Carl Witthoft
Apr 2 at 17:43
I like the second approach better -- it looks like it should work in almost any "altered implementation" of regex interpretation.
– Carl Witthoft
Apr 2 at 17:43
2
2
Even shorter, by using a reluctant quantifier: Replace
^.*?: with empty. (Docs)– Nayuki
Apr 2 at 18:46
Even shorter, by using a reluctant quantifier: Replace
^.*?: with empty. (Docs)– Nayuki
Apr 2 at 18:46
This has to be a bug.
^[^:]*?: and ^.*?: should do exactly the same thing, but they don't. ^[^:rn]*?: does work correctly though, so I'd guess that's where the issue is, somehow. The same issue occurs with ^.*?: if you check the ". matches newline" box.– Yay295
Apr 3 at 5:40
This has to be a bug.
^[^:]*?: and ^.*?: should do exactly the same thing, but they don't. ^[^:rn]*?: does work correctly though, so I'd guess that's where the issue is, somehow. The same issue occurs with ^.*?: if you check the ". matches newline" box.– Yay295
Apr 3 at 5:40
|
show 2 more comments
draft saved
draft discarded
Thanks for contributing an answer to Super User!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
draft saved
draft discarded
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsuperuser.com%2fquestions%2f1420401%2fnotepad-delete-until-colon-for-every-line-with-replace-all%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
