Hi,
On Feb 4, 10:50 pm, Michael wrote:
> Hi - I want to use this validation for an alphanumeric field.
I apologize for beating a dead horse, but since the list of possible
choices is closed, why don't you just use a SELECT element?
:o)
Anyways, it was very interesting to read about all possib
Wow. I'm delighted to have provoked such an interesting and
informative discussion.
>
> Somehow *just* falsy/truthy return values seem sloppy to me. It
> doesn't take much effort to prepend result with `!!` and document
> function's return value as that of type Boolean.
>
I guess that's my mind-co
On Feb 6, 9:00 pm, RobG wrote:
> On Feb 7, 12:21 am, kangax wrote:
[snip]
> > I'm pretty sure property lookup is faster than regexp in Javascript
> > too.
>
> It doesn't take much to test. Using a set of 1,000 values and looping
> through 10,000 lookups took about 45ms in Firefox on a laptop wi
On Feb 7, 12:21 am, kangax wrote:
> On Feb 6, 7:36 am, ColinFine wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 5, 9:29 pm, Michael wrote:> Thank you all
> > - Kangax's low profile technique works like a champ.
>
> > > Walter Lee: Regular expressions hurt my head. I will get there one
> > > day.
>
> > > The actual
On Feb 6, 7:36 am, ColinFine wrote:
> On Feb 5, 9:29 pm, Michael wrote:> Thank you all -
> Kangax's low profile technique works like a champ.
>
> > Walter Lee: Regular expressions hurt my head. I will get there one
> > day.
>
> > The actual thing I am working on take about 100 alpha/numeric
> >
On Feb 5, 9:29 pm, Michael wrote:
> Thank you all - Kangax's low profile technique works like a champ.
>
> Walter Lee: Regular expressions hurt my head. I will get there one
> day.
>
> The actual thing I am working on take about 100 alpha/numeric
> sequences of no real logical order... so makin
On Feb 6, 7:29 am, Michael wrote:
> Thank you all - Kangax's low profile technique works like a champ.
>
> Walter Lee: Regular expressions hurt my head. I will get there one
> day.
>
> The actual thing I am working on take about 100 alpha/numeric
> sequences of no real logical order... so makin
Thank you all - Kangax's low profile technique works like a champ.
Walter Lee: Regular expressions hurt my head. I will get there one
day.
The actual thing I am working on take about 100 alpha/numeric
sequences of no real logical order... so making it in regular
expression would take far longer
On Feb 5, 11:44 am, SWilk wrote:
> Walter Lee Davis pisze:> Isn't that just /(V3)|(B47242)|(V54000)/ ??
>
> No, I think it is not.
>
> I think it should be /^(V3)|(B47242)|(V54000)$/
> cause the 'bleblabliV3anything' should not match ;)
There's no need for so many parentheses, real
Walter Lee Davis pisze:
> Isn't that just /(V3)|(B47242)|(V54000)/ ??
>
No, I think it is not.
I think it should be /^(V3)|(B47242)|(V54000)$/
cause the 'bleblabliV3anything' should not match ;)
seriously, Michael:
I think you should use /^[A-Z]\d{5}$/, which will match a sequence
Isn't that just /(V3)|(B47242)|(V54000)/ ??
Walter
On Feb 5, 2009, at 8:37 AM, Michael wrote:
> V3 and B47242 and V54000
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Prototype & script.aculo.us" group
I need V3 and B47242 and V54000 to be valid. Any other sequence
would give the error message.
On Feb 5, 7:02 am, david wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> Do you have any restriction, for the valid number sequence, because,
> we must create any regexp for a precise need.
> So what is you're EXACT nee
Hi Michael,
Do you have any restriction, for the valid number sequence, because,
we must create any regexp for a precise need.
So what is you're EXACT need?
--
david
On 4 fév, 22:50, Michael wrote:
> Hi - I want to use this validation for an alphanumeric field.
>
> return Validation.get('IsEmp
13 matches
Mail list logo
