Re: Question about metacharacter '*'

References	<1404668474.56075.BPMail_high_noncarrier@web163802.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <53B9D273.1060706@mrabarnett.plus.com>
From	Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierreda@gmail.com>
Date	2014-07-06 17:39 -0700
Subject	Re: Question about metacharacter '*'
Newsgroups	comp.lang.python
Message-ID	<mailman.11565.1404693646.18130.python-list@python.org> (permalink)

Show all headers | View raw

The reason I did not use \d\d* or \d+ or ^\d+$ or any number of
more-correct things was because the OP was new to regexps.

-- Devin

On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 at 3:49 PM, MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> wrote:
> On 2014-07-06 18:41, Albert-Jan Roskam wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> In article <d8f8d76d-0a47-4f59-8f09-da2a44cc1d2e@googlegroups.com>,
>>> Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> As an aside i prefer to only utilize a "character set" when
>>>> nothing else will suffice. And in this case r"[0-9][0-9]*"
>>>> can be expressed just as correctly  (and less noisy IMHO) as
>>>> r"\d\d*".
>>>
>>>
>>> Even better, r"\d+"
>>
>>
>> I tend tot do that too, even though technically the two are not perfectly
>> equivalent. With the re.LOCALE flag LC_ctype is also affected, which affects
>> what is captured by \d but not by [0-9]
>>
> \d also matches more than just [0-9] in Unicode.
>
> --
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Question about metacharacter '*' Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierreda@gmail.com> - 2014-07-06 17:39 -0700

csiph-web