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.
-- Devin On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 at 3:49 PM, MRAB <pyt...@mrabarnett.plus.com> wrote: > On 2014-07-06 18:41, Albert-Jan Roskam wrote: >> >> >> >> >>> In article <d8f8d76d-0a47-4f59-8f09-da2a44cc1...@googlegroups.com>, >>> Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohn...@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 >>>> r"\d\d*". >>> >>> >>> 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. > > -- > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
