|
|
Posted by davranfor on 10/17/07 21:21
On 17 oct, 21:10, "Rik Wasmus" <luiheidsgoe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 22:50:59 +0200, <davran...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 17 oct, 20:20, "Rik Wasmus" <luiheidsgoe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:59:49 +0200, <davran...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Hello
>
> >> > I need a regular expression that validate a list of numbers separated
> >> > by "-" , numbers can not be greater than 999
>
> >> > Valid examples
> >> > 0
> >> > 12-455-01
> >> > 1-9
> >> > 125-32-155-45-45
>
> >> > Invalid examples
> >> > -1
> >> > 45-
> >> > 1-45665456-4
> >> > 12-45-
> >> > -
>
> >> Hmmz, showing a 'best try' would be appreciated. However, I normally
> >> can't
> >> resist a good regex, so here it goes:
>
> >> '/^([1-9][0-9]?)?[0-9](-([1-9][0-9]?)?[0-9])*$/'
>
> >> Untested BTW. I've made 78-034-89 invalid, as a number should not start
> >> with zero, unless it's only 1 zero. 't Would be simpler if it was valid,
> >> your choice.
>
> > works like a charm, can you explain the simple way without check zero
> > at start?
>
> '/^ # match start of string
> [0-9]{1,3} # match 1 to 3 digits
> ( # start subpattern
> - # literal -
> [0-9]{1,3} # match 1 to 3 digits
> )* # match subpattern zero or more times
> $ # match has to run all the way up untill the end of the string
> /x'
>
> When starting with regexes, and certainly for the more complex ones, don't
> underestimate the power of /x: comments in the regex itself, indentation
> to keep things clear, it does wonders. It also keeps you from
> rediscovering how the hell your regex worked 6 months after you wrote it
> when you have to track a bug.....
> --
> Rik Wasmus
Thanks !!! simple and beatifull
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|