• To: max@m...
• Subject: Re: Fun with regular expressions
• From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@e...>
• Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 16:22:07 +0100
• Cc: "'xml-dev@l...'" <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <40210BE6.4010905@m...>
• References: <40210BE6.4010905@m...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031205 Thunderbird/0.4

Max Chappell wrote:
> Another piece of advice is to use nested brackets such as: 
> "[a-zA-Z-[ABC]]" (Use any letters except AB or C).
> Along these lines I've tried:
> "[.-[NaN]]*" - far from working...

Does something like (.-[Na])+ work? I'm unsure that . is a proper 
character class that's subject to substraction.

> This does not allow .00009 for example, so we'll have to make the reg 
> exp even more complicated.

I believe I have one somewhere that's close to being good and that could 
exclude NaN. However it's several lines long (when wrapped) and last 
year it tended to crash validators. I can dig it up if you don't find a 
pleasant solution.

-- 
Robin Berjon

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Fun with regular expressions
    • From: Max Chappell <max@m...>

• References:
  • Fun with regular expressions
    • From: Max Chappell <max@m...>

• Prev by Date: Intepretation of choice compositor and occurence into xml schema
• Next by Date: RE: Fun with regular expressions
• Previous by thread: Fun with regular expressions
• Next by thread: Re: Fun with regular expressions
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread