I find that:
[0-9]
is clearer and easier to type than:
[:digit:]
of course, I'd rather have:
\d
I do very well without ever using the posix-style.
Dick
At 8:56 AM -0400 7/27/01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Being a Perl programmer also, this is one of the things that really
>frustrates me about CF's regular expressions.
>
>Okay, so back in the day, Allaire decided to go with POSIX-style character
>classes. That still doesn't explain to me why you have to put the extra
>square brackets in there, and it doesn't explain why I can't write:
>[:digit:]{3}-?[:digit:]{4} to describe a US-style telephone number
>without an area code. I work with three different software packages that
>all support "regular expressions", but there's nothing "regular" about
>them. They all use different notations, they all have quirks, and I still
>have to look it up in order to remember which "regular" expression I'm
>using.
>
>Maybe I'm missing something, but I haven't been able to take my knowledge
>of regexp that I learned from Perl and apply it to CF with any semblance of
>consistency.
>|------------------+------------------------------------------------------|
>|Eric A. Laney |Happiness: |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
