in reply to About \d \w and \s
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).
|
---|
Replies are listed 'Best First'. | |
---|---|
Re^2: About \d \w and \s
by demerphq (Chancellor) on Oct 18, 2009 at 16:27 UTC | |
by kyle (Abbot) on Oct 18, 2009 at 16:32 UTC | |
by demerphq (Chancellor) on Oct 18, 2009 at 16:53 UTC | |
Re^2: About \d \w and \s
by demerphq (Chancellor) on Oct 18, 2009 at 17:19 UTC |