I want to replace the characters '<' and '>' by < and > with COBOL. I was wondering about INSPECT statement, but it looks like this statement just can be used to translate one char by another. My intention is to replace all html characters by their html entities.
Can anyone figure out some way to do it? Maybe looping over the string and testing each char is the only way?
GnuCOBOL or IBM COBOL examples are welcome.
My best code is something like it: (http://ideone.com/MKiAc6)
IDENTIFICATION DIVISION.
PROGRAM-ID. HTMLSECURE.
ENVIRONMENT DIVISION.
DATA DIVISION.
WORKING-STORAGE SECTION.
77 INPTXT PIC X(50).
77 OUTTXT PIC X(500).
77 I PIC 9(4) COMP VALUE 1.
77 P PIC 9(4) COMP VALUE 1.
PROCEDURE DIVISION.
MOVE 1 TO P
MOVE '<SCRIPT> TEST TEST </SCRIPT>' TO INPTXT
PERFORM VARYING I FROM 1 BY 1
UNTIL I EQUAL LENGTH OF INPTXT
EVALUATE INPTXT(I:1)
WHEN '<'
MOVE "<" TO OUTTXT(P:4)
ADD 4 TO P
WHEN '>'
MOVE ">" TO OUTTXT(P:4)
ADD 4 TO P
WHEN OTHER
MOVE INPTXT(I:1) TO OUTTXT(P:1)
ADD 1 TO P
END-EVALUATE
END-PERFORM
DISPLAY OUTTXT
STOP RUN
.
GnuCOBOL (yes, another name branding change) has an intrinsic function extension, FUNCTION SUBSTITUTE.
move function substitute(inptxt, ">", ">", "<", "<") to where-ever-including-inptxt
Takes a subject string, and pairs of patterns and replacements. (This is not regex patterns, straight up text matching). See http://opencobol.add1tocobol.com/gnucobol/#function-substitute for some more details. The patterns and replacements can all be different lengths.
As intrinsic functions return anonymous COBOL fields, the result of the function can be used to overwrite the subject field, without worry of sliding overlap or other "change while reading" problems.
COBOL is a language of fixed-length fields. So no, INSPECT is not going to be able to do what you want.
If you need this for an IBM Mainframe, your SORT product (assuming sufficiently up-to-date) can do this using FINDREP.
If you look at the XML processing possibilities in Enterprise COBOL, you will see that they do exactly what you want (I'd guess). GnuCOBOL can also readily interface with lots of other things. If you are writing GnuCOBOL for running on a non-Mainframe, I'd suggest you ask on the GnuCOBOL part of SourceForge.
Otherwise, yes, it would come down to looping through the data. Once you clarify what you want a bit more, you may get examples of that if you still need them.
Related
I'm a bit confused over the difference between docstrings and comments in python.
In my class my teacher introduced something known as a 'design recipe', a set of steps that will supposedly help us students plot and organize our coding better in Python. From what I understand, the below is an example of the steps we follow - this so call design recipe (the stuff in the quotations):
def term_work_mark(a0_mark, a1_mark, a2_mark, ex_mark, midterm_mark):
''' (float, float, float, float, float) -> float
Takes your marks on a0_mark, a1_mark, a2_mark, ex_mark and midterm_mark,
calculates their respective weight contributions and sums these
contributions to deliver your overall term mark out of a maximum of 55 (This
is because the exam mark is not taken account of in this function)
>>>term_work_mark(5, 5, 5, 5, 5)
11.8
>>>term_work_mark(0, 0, 0, 0, 0)
0.0
'''
a0_component = contribution(a0_mark, a0_max_mark, a0_weight)
a1_component = contribution(a1_mark, a1_max_mark, a1_weight)
a2_component = contribution(a2_mark, a2_max_mark, a2_weight)
ex_component = contribution(ex_mark, exercises_max_mark,exercises_weight)
mid_component = contribution(midterm_mark, midterm_max_mark, midterm_weight)
return (a0_component + a1_component + a2_component + ex_component +
mid_component)
As far as I understand this is basically a docstring, and in our version of a docstring it must include three things: a description, examples of what your function should do if you enter it in the python shell, and a 'type contract', a section that shows you what types you enter and what types the function will return.
Now this is all good and done, but our assignments require us to also have comments which explain the nature of our functions, using the token '#' symbol.
So, my question is, haven't I already explained what my function will do in the description section of the docstring? What's the point of adding comments if I'll essentially be telling the reader the exact same thing?
It appears your teacher is a fan of How to Design Programs ;)
I'd tackle this as writing for two different audiences who won't always overlap.
First there are the docstrings; these are for people who are going to be using your code without needing or wanting to know how it works. Docstrings can be turned into actual documentation. Consider the official Python documentation - What's available in each library and how to use it, no implementation details (Unless they directly relate to use)
Secondly there are in-code comments; these are to explain what is going on to people (generally you!) who want to extend the code. These will not normally be turned into documentation as they are really about the code itself rather than usage. Now there are about as many opinions on what makes for good comments (or lack thereof) as there are programmers. My personal rules of thumb for adding comments are to explain:
Parts of the code that are necessarily complex. (Optimisation comes to mind)
Workarounds for code you don't have control over, that may otherwise appear illogical
I'll admit to TODOs as well, though I try to keep that to a minimum
Where I've made a choice of a simpler algorithm where a better performing (but more complex) option can go if performance in that section later becomes critical
Since you're coding in an academic setting, and it sounds like your lecturer is going for verbose, I'd say just roll with it. Use code comments to explain how you are doing what you say you are doing in the design recipe.
I believe that it's worth to mention what PEP8 says, I mean, the pure concept.
Docstrings
Conventions for writing good documentation strings (a.k.a. "docstrings") are immortalized in PEP 257.
Write docstrings for all public modules, functions, classes, and methods. Docstrings are not necessary for non-public methods, but you should have a comment that describes what the method does. This comment should appear after the def line.
PEP 257 describes good docstring conventions. Note that most importantly, the """ that ends a multiline docstring should be on a line by itself, e.g.:
"""Return a foobang
Optional plotz says to frobnicate the bizbaz first.
"""
For one liner docstrings, please keep the closing """ on the same line.
Comments
Block comments
Generally apply to some (or all) code that follows them, and are indented to the same level as that code. Each line of a block comment starts with a # and a single space (unless it is indented text inside the comment).
Paragraphs inside a block comment are separated by a line containing a single #.
Inline Comments
Use inline comments sparingly.
An inline comment is a comment on the same line as a statement. Inline comments should be separated by at least two spaces from the statement. They should start with a # and a single space.
Inline comments are unnecessary and in fact distracting if they state the obvious.
Don't do this:
x = x + 1 # Increment x
But sometimes, this is useful:
x = x + 1 # Compensate for border
Reference
https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0008/#documentation-strings
https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0008/#inline-comments
https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0008/#block-comments
https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0257/
First of all, for formatting your posts you can use the help options above the text area you type your post.
And about comments and doc strings, the doc string is there to explain the overall use and basic information of the methods. On the other hand comments are meant to give specific information on blocks or lines, #TODO is used to remind you what you want to do in future, definition of variables and so on. By the way, in IDLE the doc string is shown as a tool tip when you hover over the method's name.
Quoting from this page http://www.pythonforbeginners.com/basics/python-docstrings/
Python documentation strings (or docstrings) provide a convenient way
of associating documentation with Python modules, functions, classes,
and methods.
An object's docsting is defined by including a string constant as the
first statement in the object's definition.
It's specified in source code that is used, like a comment, to
document a specific segment of code.
Unlike conventional source code comments the docstring should describe
what the function does, not how.
All functions should have a docstring
This allows the program to inspect these comments at run time, for
instance as an interactive help system, or as metadata.
Docstrings can be accessed by the __doc__ attribute on objects.
Docstrings can be accessed through a program (__doc__) where as inline comments cannot be accessed.
Interactive help systems like in bpython and IPython can use docstrings to display the docsting during the development. So that you dont have to visit the program everytime.
I have been working through the Advent of Code problems in Perl6 this year and was attempting to use a grammar to parse the Day 3's input.
Given input in this form: #1 # 1,3: 4x4 and this grammar that I created:
grammar Claim {
token TOP {
'#' <id> \s* '#' \s* <coordinates> ':' \s* <dimensions>
}
token digits {
<digit>+
}
token id {
<digits>
}
token coordinates {
<digits> ',' <digits>
}
token dimensions {
<digits> 'x' <digits>
}
}
say Claim.parse('#1 # 1,3: 4x4');
I am interested in extracting the actual tokens that were matched i.e. id, x + y from coordinates, and height + width from the dimensions from the resulting parse. I understand that I can pull them from the resulting Match object of Claim.parse(<input>), but I have to dig down through each grammar production to get the value I need e.g.
say $match<id>.hash<digits>.<digit>;
this seems a little messy, is there a better way?
For the particular challenge you're solving, using a grammar is like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
Like #Scimon says, a single regex would be fine. You can keep it nicely readable by laying it out appropriately. You can name the captures and keep them all at the top level:
/ ^
'#' $<id>=(\d+) ' '
'# ' $<x>=(\d+) ',' $<y>=(\d+)
': ' $<w>=(\d+) x $<d>=(\d+)
$
/;
say ~$<id x y w d>; # 1 1 3 4 4
(The prefix ~ calls .Str on the value on its right hand side. Called on a Match object it stringifies to the matched strings.)
With that out the way, your question remains perfectly cromulent as it is because it's important to know how P6 scales in this regard from simple regexes like the one above to the largest and most complex parsing tasks. So that's what the rest of this answer covers, using your example as the starting point.
Digging less messily
say $match<id>.hash<digits>.<digit>; # [｢1｣]
this seems a little messy, is there a better way?
Your say includes unnecessary code and output nesting. You could just simplify to something like:
say ~$match<id> # 1
Digging a little deeper less messily
I am interested in extracting the actual tokens that were matched i.e. id, x + y from coordinates, and height + width from the dimensions from the resulting parse.
For matches of multiple tokens you no longer have the luxury of relying on Perl 6 guessing which one you mean. (When there's only one, guess which one it guesses you mean. :))
One way to write your say to get the y coordinate:
say ~$match<coordinates><digits>[1] # 3
If you want to drop the <digits> you can mark which parts of a pattern should be stored in a list of numbered captures. One way to do so is to put parentheses around those parts:
token coordinates { (<digits>) ',' (<digits>) }
Now you've eliminated the need to mention <digits>:
say ~$match<coordinates>[1] # 3
You could also name the new parenthesized captures:
token coordinates { $<x>=(<digits>) ',' $<y>=(<digits>) }
say ~$match<coordinates><y> # 3
Pre-digging
I have to dig down through each grammar production to get the value I need
The above techniques still all dig down into the automatically generated parse tree which by default precisely corresponds to the tree implicit in the grammar's hierarchy of rule calls. The above techniques just make the way you dig into it seem a little shallower.
Another step is to do the digging work as part of the parsing process so that the say is simple.
You could inline some code right into the TOP token to store just the interesting data you've made. Just insert a {...} block in the appropriate spot (for this sort of thing that means the end of the token given that you need the token pattern to have already done its matching work):
my $made;
grammar Claim {
token TOP {
'#' <id> \s* '#' \s* <coordinates> ':' \s* <dimensions>
{ $made = ~($<id>, $<coordinatess><x y>, $<dimensions><digits>[0,1]) }
}
...
Now you can write just:
say $made # 1 1 3 4 4
This illustrates that you can just write arbitrary code at any point in any rule -- something that's not possible with most parsing formalisms and their related tools -- and the code can access the parse state as it is at that point.
Pre-digging less messily
Inlining code is quick and dirty. So is using a variable.
The normal thing to do for storing data is to instead use the make function. This hangs data off the match object that's being constructed corresponding to a given rule. This can then be retrieved using the .made method. So instead of $make = you'd have:
{ make ~($<id>, $<coordinatess><x y>, $<dimensions><digits>[0,1]) }
And now you can write:
say $match.made # 1 1 3 4 4
That's much tidier. But there's more.
A sparse subtree of a parse tree
.oO ( 🎶 On the first day of an imagined 2019 Perl 6 Christmas Advent calendar 🎶 a StackOverflow title said to me ... )
In the above example I constructed a .made payload for just the TOP node. For larger grammars it's common to form a sparse subtree (a term I coined for this because I couldn't find a standard existing term).
This sparse subtree consists of the .made payload for the TOP that's a data structure referring to .made payloads of lower level rules which in turn refer to lower level rules and so on, skipping uninteresting intermediate rules.
The canonical use case for this is to form an Abstract Syntax Tree after parsing some programming code.
In fact there's an alias for .made, namely .ast:
say $match.ast # 1 1 3 4 4
While this is trivial to use, it's also fully general. P6 uses a P6 grammar to parse P6 code -- and then builds an AST using this mechanism.
Making it all elegant
For maintainability and reusability you can and typically should not insert code inline at the end of rules but should instead use Action objects.
In summary
There are a range of general mechanisms that scale from simple to complex scenarios and can be combined as best fits any given use case.
Add parentheses as I explained above, naming the capture that those parentheses zero in on, if that is a nice simplification for digging into the parse tree.
Inline any action you wish to take during parsing of a rule. You get full access to the parse state at that point. This is great for making it easy to extract just the data you want from a parse because you can use the make convenience function. And you can abstract all actions that are to be taken at the end of successfully matching rules out of a grammar, ensuring this is a clean solution code-wise and that a single grammar remains reusable for multiple actions.
One final thing. You may wish to prune the parse tree to omit unnecessary leaf detail (to reduce memory consumption and/or simplify parse tree displays). To do so, write <.foo>, with a dot preceding the rule name, to switch the default automatic capturing off for that rule.
You can refer to each of you named portions directly. So to get the cordinates you can access :
say $match.<coordinates>.<digits>
this will return you the Array of digits matches. Ig you just want the values the easiest way is probably :
say $match.<coordinates>.<digits>.map( *.Int) or say $match.<coordinates>.<digits>>>.Int or even say $match.<coordinates>.<digits>».Int
to cast them to Ints
For the id field it's even easier you can just cast the <id> match to an Int :
say $match.<id>.Int
I've tried the answers I've found in SOF, but none supported here : https://regexr.com
I essentially have an .OPML file with a large number of podcasts and descriptions.
in the following format:
<outline text="Software Engineering Daily" type="rss" xmlUrl="http://softwareengineeringdaily.com/feed/podcast/" htmlUrl="http://softwareengineeringdaily.com" />
What regex I can use to so I can just get the title and the link:
Software Engineering Daily
http://softwareengineeringdaily.com/feed/podcast/
Brief
There are many ways to go about this. The best way is likely using an XML parser. I would definitely read this post that discusses use of regex, especially with XML.
As you can see there are many answers to your question. It also depends on which language you are using since regex engines differ. Some accept backreferences, whilst others do not. I'll post multiple methods below that work in different circumstances/for different regex flavours. You can probably piece together from the multiple regex methods below which parts work best for you.
Code
Method 1
This method works in almost any regex flavour (at least the normal ones).
This method only checks against the attribute value opening and closing marks of " and doesn't include the possibility for whitespace before or after the = symbol. This is the simplest solution to get the values you want.
See regex in use here
\b(text|xmlUrl)="[^"]*"
Similarly, the following methods add more value to the above expression
\b(text|xmlUrl)\s*=\s*"[^"]*" Allows whitespace around =
\b(text|xmlUrl)=(?:"[^"]*"|'[^']*') Allows for ' to be used as attribute value delimiter
As another alternative (following the comments below my answer), if you wanted to grab every attribute except specific ones, you can use the following. Note that I use \w, which should cover most attributes, but you can just replace this with whatever valid characters you want. \S can be used to specify any non-whitespace characters or a set such as [\w-] may be used to specify any word or hyphen character. The negation of the specific attributes occurs with (?!text|xmlUrl), which says don't match those characters. Also, note that the word boundary \b at the beginning ensures that we're matching the full attribute name of text and not the possibility of other attributes with the same termination such as subtext.
\b((?!text|xmlUrl)\w+)="[^"]*"
Method 2
This method only works with regex flavours that allow backreferences. Apparently JGsoft applications, Delphi, Perl, Python, Ruby, PHP, R, Boost, and Tcl support single-digit backreferences. Double-digit backreferences are supported by JGsoft applications, Delphi, Python, and Boost. Information according this article about numbered backreferences from Regular-Expressions.info
See regex in use here
This method uses a backreference to ensure the same closing mark is used at the start and end of the attribute's value and also includes the possibility of whitespace surrounding the = symbol. This doesn't allow the possibility for attributes with no delimiter specified (using xmlUrl=http://softwareengineeringdaily.com/feed/podcast/ may also be valid).
See regex in use here
\b(text|xmlUrl)\s*=\s*(["'])(.*?)\2
Method 3
This method is the same as Method 2 but also allows attributes with no delimiters (note that delimiters are now considered to be space characters, thus, it will only match until the next space).
See regex in use here
\b(text|xmlUrl)\s*=\s*(?:(["'])(.*?)\2|(\S*))
Method 4
While Method 3 works, some people might complain that the attribute values might either of 2 groups. This can be fixed by either of the following methods.
Method 4.A
Branch reset groups are only possible in a few languages, notably JGsoft V2, PCRE 7.2+, PHP, Delphi, R (with PCRE enabled), Boost 1.42+ according to Regular-Expressions.info
This also shows the method you would use if backreferences aren't possible and you wanted to match multiple delimiters ("([^"])"|'([^']*))
See regex in use here
\b(text|xmlUrl)\s*=\s*(?|"([^"]*)"|'([^']*)'|(\S*))
Method 4.B
Duplicate subpatterns are not often supported. See this Regular-Expresions.info article for more information
This method uses the J regex flag, which allows duplicate subpattern names ((?<v>) is in there twice)
See regex in use here
\b(text|xmlUrl)\s*=\s*(?:(["'])(?<v>.*?)\2|(?<v>\S*))
Results
Input
<outline text="Software Engineering Daily" type="rss" xmlUrl="http://softwareengineeringdaily.com/feed/podcast/" htmlUrl="http://softwareengineeringdaily.com" />
Output
Each line below represents a different group. New matches are separated by two lines.
text
Software Engineering Daily
xmlUrl
http://softwareengineeringdaily.com/feed/podcast/
Explanation
I'll explain different parts of the regexes used in the Code section that way you understand the usage of each of these parts. This is more of a reference to the methods above.
"[^"]*" This is the fastest method possible (to the best of my knowledge) to grabbing anything between two " symbols. Note that it does not check for escaped backslashes, it will match any non-" character between two ". Whilst "(.*?)" can also be used, it's slightly slower
(["'])(.*?)\2 is basically shorthand for "(.*?)"|'(.*?)'. You can use any of the following methods to get the same result:
(?:"(.*?)"|'(.*?)')
(?:"([^"])"|'([^']*)') <-- slightly faster than line above
(?|) This is a branch reset group. When you place groups inside it like (?|(x)|(y)) it returns the same group index for both matches. This means that if x is captured, it'll get group index of 1, and if y is captured, it'll also get a group index of 1.
For simple HTML strings you might get along with
Url=(['"])(.+?)\1
Here, take group $2, see a demo on regex101.com.
Obligatory: consider using a parser instead (see here).
I know I am really picky here, but like to throw it out in case I am off in my interpreting the TCL man page, actually, I wish I was wrong here, as you see the below story.
So for every new TCL developer, we recommend reading the famous "11 rules" (now it is 12 rules).
Yesterday I was asked this question: why does the following script fail?
# puts "hello
world!"
Of course it fails, I said, the first line is taken as comment, that leaves world!" as a command.
But, the newbie said, the manpage indicates that the script is parsed in certain order:
As #2 Evaluation states, the command is parsed to words first.
As #4 Double quotes states, newline is taken as is in parsing double quotes. This makes hello and world! into one word, with a newline in between.
Comments at #10 does states everything up till the next newline is ignored, but after the above processing, the newline should be the 2nd newline, the one after world!.
I see he had a point.
It makes more sense to move the comment section way ahead in the man page, maybe at the second section. With this order change, it indicates that comment recognition is preceding the word-tokenizing process.
How do you think?
Again, I have no intention to ask for change of the manpage, just want to make sure if I miss anything in interpreting the bible.
[UPDATE]
To the people suggesting to close this question as not-a-technical question, it is the same as if my colleague came here asking why that script fails even though his understanding of TCL man page indicates it is a good script.
Again, I am not asking to change the man page.
Let me re-phrase my question - when you are asked this same question, what flaw do you see in his reasoning?
[UPDATE2]
Thanks Donal. I think this is what I learnt, TCL parser goes one char by another, there is no look-ahead.
This is another example:
puts [#haha]
Such script fails at tclsh for the same reason, TCL parser does not break down the script first and only parses the string embedded inside the matching brackets, instead it recognizes "#" as the start of comment and ignores everything after it.
The rules in the Tcl(n) manual page describe pretty precisely the parser that Tcl uses. Requests to change it substantively are usually denied as they tend to have far-reaching consequences and interact with each other trickily. Verifying that a reordering of the rules is not substantive is a non-trivial task, as they correspond to quite a bit of code (our parser and a chunk of our bytecode compiler).
Adding non-normative sections (e.g., EXAMPLES) is easier.
Update based on your updated question
The problem with the reasoning is that the rules are a whole, not really a layered set of parts. They do interact with each other. (The one that usually trips people up is the interaction between the brace rule and the comment rule when inside a braced string such as a procedure body.) Comments really are true comments, and extend up to the end of the line (allowing for backslash-newline sequences) but not beyond, but they only start at places where commands start, not at other places with a # character, and that's the genuinely tricky bit.
Unfortunately, the way that the Tcl parser works is a bit different to the way that programmers think, but most of the time it's pretty good at pretending to work in a “reasonable fashion”. The tricky edge cases don't actually come up too often other than when dealing with the brace-comment interaction mentioned above. The other cases which I hit tend to be either with a switch (resolvable by just putting the comment in the arm) or with long literal lists of things where I want to comment some sections of the list; in that latter case, I actually post-process the string before using it as a list.
set exampleList {
a b c
d e f
# Not really a comment but I want to use it like one!
g h i
j k l
}
# Convert “comment” lines to empty lines
regsub -all -line "^\\s*#.*$" $exampleList "" exampleList
The general advantage of Tcl's rules is that it is actually pretty easy to embed other languages within Tcl, precisely because Tcl only treats # (and other character) as special in well-defined contexts. As long as you can have the embedded language be one that uses balanced braces — and that's almost all of them in practice — then embedding it is utterly trivial. The other cases have to use backslashes and/or double quotes and are pretty ugly, but are also a minuscule fraction of all the embedding cases.
Your colleague's problem is that he's looking at the whole script in one go, whereas the Tcl parser handles one character at a time and doesn't do meaningful amounts of lookahead. It's just some dumb code.
I have a text field from a SQL Server Source. It is a phone number field that typically has this format:
Home: 555-555-1212
Work: 555-555-1212
Cell: 555-555-1212
Emergency: 555-555-1212
I'm trying to split among fields so that only 555-555-1212 is displayed
I am then taking this field and converting to a string. There are literally break returns (\r\n) between the labels here. The goal here is to have this data split among multiple fields (home,work,cell,emergency,etc.) I was researching how to split text among fields and I made some progress. In the case of home numbers, I used this logic:
SUBSTRING(Phone_converted,FINDSTRING(Phone_converted,"Home:",1) + 5,FINDSTRING(Phone_converted,"\n",1) - FINDSTRING(Phone_converted,"Home:",1) - 5)
This works great as it parses up to the text return and I get 555-555-1212.
Now I experience an issue when searching for a text between break returns. I tried the same logic for Work numbers:
SUBSTRING(Phone_converted,FINDSTRING(Phone_converted,"Work:",1) + 5,FINDSTRING(Phone_converted,"\n",1) - FINDSTRING(Phone_converted,"Work:",1) - 5)
But that won't work and results in writing to my error redirection file. I then tried to insert a break return to find the text at the beginning
SUBSTRING(Phone_converted,FINDSTRING(Phone_converted,"\nWork:",1) + 5,FINDSTRING(Phone_converted,"\n",1) - FINDSTRING(Phone_converted,"\nWork:",1) - 5)
No luck there either. Any ideas on how I can address this. Also, I would appreciate an idea of how I can handle the emergency title at the end. There won't be a break return in that situation, but I still want to parse the text.
I look at your data and I see
Home:|555-555-1212|Work:|555-555-1212|Cell:|555-555-1212|Emergency:|555-555-1212
I'm using the pipe character, |, as a placeholder for where I would segment that string, which is basically wherever you have whitespace (space, tab, newline, etc).
There are two approaches to this. I'll start with the easy one.
Script Component
String.Split is your friend here. Look at what it did with that source data
I added a new Script Component, acting as a Transformation and created 4 output columns, all string of length 12 codepage 1252: Home, Work, Cell, and Emergency. I populate them like so
public override void Input0_ProcessInputRow(Input0Buffer Row)
{
string[] split = Row.PhoneData.Split();
Row.Home = split[1];
Row.Work = split[4];
Row.Cell = split[7];
Row.Emergency = split[10];
}
Derived Column
I'm not going to build out a full blown implementation of this. The above is much to simple but I run into situations where ETL devs say they aren't allowed to use Script tasks/components and that's usually because people reached for them first instead of last.
The approach here is to have lots of Derived Columns Components on your Data Flow. It won't hurt performance and in fact can make it easier. It definitely will make your debugging easier as you'll have lots of it to do.
DER Find Colons
This would add 4 columns into the dataflow - HomeColonPosition, WorkColonPosition etc. You've already started down this path but just build it out into the actual data flow as you'll need to reference these positions and again, it's easier to fix the calculation that populates a column versus a calculation that's wrong and used everywhere. You're likely to find that 4 derived columns are useful here as you'd want to use the previous colon's position as the starting point for the third argument to FINDSTRING
Thus, instead of Work being
FINDSTRING(PhoneData, ":", FINDSTRING(PhoneData, ":" 1) + 1)
it would just be
FINDSTRING(PhoneData, ":", HomeColonPosition + 1)
Just knowing the position of the 4 colons in that string, I can figure out where the phone numbers are (maybe). The position of the colon + 2 (colon and the space) is the starting point and then go out 12 characters.
Where this approach gets ugly, much as it did with the script approach is when that data isn't consistent.