Question about metacharacter '*'
jeanpierreda at gmail.com
Mon Jul 7 02:39:57 CEST 2014
The reason I did not use \d\d* or \d+ or ^\d+$ or any number of
more-correct things was because the OP was new to regexps.
On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 at 3:49 PM, MRAB <python at mrabarnett.plus.com> wrote:
> On 2014-07-06 18:41, Albert-Jan Roskam wrote:
>>> In article <d8f8d76d-0a47-4f59-8f09-da2a44cc1d2e at googlegroups.com>,
>>> Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> As an aside i prefer to only utilize a "character set" when
>>>> nothing else will suffice. And in this case r"[0-9][0-9]*"
>>>> can be expressed just as correctly (and less noisy IMHO) as
>>> Even better, r"\d+"
>> I tend tot do that too, even though technically the two are not perfectly
>> equivalent. With the re.LOCALE flag LC_ctype is also affected, which affects
>> what is captured by \d but not by [0-9]
> \d also matches more than just [0-9] in Unicode.
More information about the Python-list