I think you're right, \d should be strictly equivalent to [0-9]. That's the way it worked pre-unicode, and I suspect a lot of code still uses it this way. The author would be quite surprised to see that their regexp actually matches non-traditional digits, and it could be a potential security problem.
I don't really like the /b, for broken, modifier. Maybe /t (traditional?) or /c (classical) if they aren't already used (I don't believe they are).
In reply to Re: About \d \w and \s
by mirod
in thread About \d \w and \s
by demerphq
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |