Description: https://insider.microsoft365.com/en-us/blog/new-regular-expression-regex-functions-in-excel excel is introducing these 3 regex formulae with more regex support in xlookup and xmatch but lets focus on these 3 for now REGEXTEST: Checks if any part of supplied text matches a regex pattern. REGEXEXTRACT: Extracts one or more parts of supplied text that match a regex pattern. REGEXREPLACE: Searches for a regex pattern within supplied text and replaces it with different text. Steps to Reproduce: support new excel formulae regarding regex Actual Results: formula is missing Expected Results: formula should work in calc as it works in excel Reproducible: Always User Profile Reset: No Additional Info: Version: 24.2.3.2 (X86_64) / LibreOffice Community Build ID: 433d9c2ded56988e8a90e6b2e771ee4e6a5ab2ba CPU threads: 4; OS: Linux 6.5; UI render: default; VCL: gtk3 Locale: en-IN (en_IN); UI: en-US Calc: threaded
As always, MS collaborating with the world. REGEX is available on LibreOffice since 2018 (tdf#113977) https://help.libreoffice.org/latest/en-US/text/scalc/01/func_regex.html?DbPAR=CALC#bm_id831542233029549
(In reply to m_a_riosv from comment #1) > As always, MS collaborating with the world. > > REGEX is available on LibreOffice since 2018 (tdf#113977) > > https://help.libreoffice.org/latest/en-US/text/scalc/01/func_regex. > html?DbPAR=CALC#bm_id831542233029549 i am specifically asking to support windows =regextest and other 2 formulae. i know LO has has regex for ages but this isn't a drop in replacement for the new excel formulae or is it?
Should be fairly straight forward to implement these functions for interoperability, as each of them covers a limited subset of what REGEX() already does. Care should be taken to not duplicate the implementation four times but factor out the common part(s). However, results may have to be taken with a grain of salt, if Excel uses a regex engine with different capabilities than ICU regex they may differ, which generally isn't a problem with commonly used regex patterns and features but more sophisticated details.
+1 for interoperability (In reply to Eike Rathke from comment #3) > Should be fairly straight forward to implement... Easyhackable?
Not really. For new functions too many places need to be touched to get it right.