News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on \d less efficient than [0-9]. Parent comment

Re:\d less efficient than [0-9] by ars on Sunday May 19, 2013 @06:03PM (#5734590)
Is that actually a good thing? If I'm using \d to validate numbers (for example to check before string to int conversion, or IP address, phone number, or any other use), other unicode digits are not helpful to me.

It's great to support unicode, but I don't think the \d should have been extended this way. Add a \ud or something.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:\d less efficient than [0-9] by Tuna-Fish on Sunday May 19, 2013 @06:16PM (#5734625)
Given that the category is specifically "decimal digit", I think it's good, so long as the number parsing code accepts them all too.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:\d less efficient than [0-9] by dllthomas on Sunday May 19, 2013 @08:29PM (#5735123)
Yes. Assuming that, it's good. I think that assumption is likely to be invalid in many cases, though.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:\d less efficient than [0-9] by rmc on Monday May 20, 2013 @03:41AM (#5736428)
Yes it's a good thing. There are other places in the world that don't just use ascii. If you want European style numbers just use [0-9]
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:\d less efficient than [0-9] by bellbind on Sunday May 19, 2013 @06:25PM (#5734653)
If you use a preg engine you can add the /a modifier which excludes unicode chars from matches.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:\d less efficient than [0-9] by chebucto on Monday May 20, 2013 @12:23AM (#5735871)
Maybe specify the subset of unicode you're expecting in the headers, and have the compiler do the nitty gritty?
[ Parent | on HN ]