On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2002 at 02:26:42PM +0000, Matt Sergeant wrote:
> > I think the original intention of the count was to make sure we had at
> > least three upper case chars, in which case you could get away with:
> >
> > /^([A-Z]|[^a-z])*?[A-Z]{3,}([A-Z]|[^a-z])*$/
> >
> > That needs testing though to make sure it doesn't backtrack horribly (I
> > don't think it will, but I could be wrong).
>
> Why not simplify this a little bit?
>
> /^[^a-z]*?[A-Z]{3}[^a-z]*$/
>
>
> [^a-z] encompases [A-Z], so it's redundant in the front and back.
Yeah, but [A-Z] is examined first - it was a performance improvment.
Having said that I'm happy with your changes.
--
Matt.
<:->get a SMart net</:->
________________________________________________________________________
This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The
service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive
anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit:
http://www.star.net.uk
________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________
Spamassassin-talk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
