in reply to Re^2: better (faster) way of writing regexp
in thread better (faster) way of writing regexp

No. \d matches any digits, that is, anything numerical that is used as numbers 0 .. 9, and not part of a set that includes more numerals. (There are scripts that have number symbols for 0 .. 9, but also for 100, 1000, etc. Their 1 .. 10 aren't matched by \d).

\pN will match any "numerical" character, which is more than \d (\d is the same as \p{Nd}).

  • Comment on Re^3: better (faster) way of writing regexp

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: better (faster) way of writing regexp
by rovf (Priest) on Dec 02, 2009 at 15:16 UTC

    I think I was not clear enough. Would, in this context, the Kanji for ichi (unicode code point 0x4E00, 1) or juu (code point 0x5341, 10) be considered a unicode digit? At least the one for ichi can be used in positional numbering like our digit 1...

    -- 
    Ronald Fischer <ynnor@mm.st>
[reply]
[d/l]
      In 5.10.1 (i.e. Unicode 5.1.0), I think \d will match 0030 0031 0032 0033 0034 0035 0036 0037 0038 0039 0660 0661 0662 0663 0664 0665 0666 0667 0668 0669 06F0 06F1 06F2 06F3 06F4 06F5 06F6 06F7 06F8 06F9 07C0 07C1 07C2 07C3 07C4 07C5 07C6 07C7 07C8 07C9 0966 0967 0968 0969 096A 096B 096C 096D 096E 096F 09E6 09E7 09E8 09E9 09EA 09EB 09EC 09ED 09EE 09EF 0A66 0A67 0A68 0A69 0A6A 0A6B 0A6C 0A6D 0A6E 0A6F 0AE6 0AE7 0AE8 0AE9 0AEA 0AEB 0AEC 0AED 0AEE 0AEF 0B66 0B67 0B68 0B69 0B6A 0B6B 0B6C 0B6D 0B6E 0B6F 0BE6 0BE7 0BE8 0BE9 0BEA 0BEB 0BEC 0BED 0BEE 0BEF 0C66 0C67 0C68 0C69 0C6A 0C6B 0C6C 0C6D 0C6E 0C6F 0CE6 0CE7 0CE8 0CE9 0CEA 0CEB 0CEC 0CED 0CEE 0CEF 0D66 0D67 0D68 0D69 0D6A 0D6B 0D6C 0D6D 0D6E 0D6F 0E50 0E51 0E52 0E53 0E54 0E55 0E56 0E57 0E58 0E59 0ED0 0ED1 0ED2 0ED3 0ED4 0ED5 0ED6 0ED7 0ED8 0ED9 0F20 0F21 0F22 0F23 0F24 0F25 0F26 0F27 0F28 0F29 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 17E0 17E1 17E2 17E3 17E4 17E5 17E6 17E7 17E8 17E9 1810 1811 1812 1813 1814 1815 1816 1817 1818 1819 1946 1947 1948 1949 194A 194B 194C 194D 194E 194F 19D0 19D1 19D2 19D3 19D4 19D5 19D6 19D7 19D8 19D9 1B50 1B51 1B52 1B53 1B54 1B55 1B56 1B57 1B58 1B59 1BB0 1BB1 1BB2 1BB3 1BB4 1BB5 1BB6 1BB7 1BB8 1BB9 1C40 1C41 1C42 1C43 1C44 1C45 1C46 1C47 1C48 1C49 1C50 1C51 1C52 1C53 1C54 1C55 1C56 1C57 1C58 1C59 A620 A621 A622 A623 A624 A625 A626 A627 A628 A629 A8D0 A8D1 A8D2 A8D3 A8D4 A8D5 A8D6 A8D7 A8D8 A8D9 A900 A901 A902 A903 A904 A905 A906 A907 A908 A909 AA50 AA51 AA52 AA53 AA54 AA55 AA56 AA57 AA58 AA59 FF10 FF11 FF12 FF13 FF14 FF15 FF16 FF17 FF18 FF19 104A0 104A1 104A2 104A3 104A4 104A5 104A6 104A7 104A8 104A9 1D7CE 1D7CF 1D7D0 1D7D1 1D7D2 1D7D3 1D7D4 1D7D5 1D7D6 1D7D7 1D7D8 1D7D9 1D7DA 1D7DB 1D7DC 1D7DD 1D7DE 1D7DF 1D7E0 1D7E1 1D7E2 1D7E3 1D7E4 1D7E5 1D7E6 1D7E7 1D7E8 1D7E9 1D7EA 1D7EB 1D7EC 1D7ED 1D7EE 1D7EF 1D7F0 1D7F1 1D7F2 1D7F3 1D7F4 1D7F5 1D7F6 1D7F7 1D7F8 1D7F9 1D7FA 1D7FB 1D7FC 1D7FD 1D7FE 1D7FF
[reply]
      Well, it's not that hard to write a perl one-liner and see if any of them matches \d, is it? It takes far less keystrokes than your question.

      Having said that, as far as I can determine, 一 (CJK UNIFIED IDEOGRAPH-4E00) and 十 (CJK UNIFIED IDEOGRAPH-5341) are classified as a letter (\p{Lo}), with numerical values 1 and 10.

      As I said before, to be considered a digit, you'll have to be a number between 0 and 9 (inclusive), and not part of a greater set. I do not believe 10 to be between 0 and 9.

[reply]
        Well, it's not that hard to write a perl one-liner and see if any of them matches \d, is it?
        Actually it is... From the links pointed out in Re^3: better (faster) way of writing regexp, I concluded that the exact interpretation of \d in Perl is still under discussion, and at least not implemented yet in Perl 5.8 (which is running here); and, I have not found an easy way to use Unicode on the Command Line in Windows 2000.

        As I said before, to be considered a digit, you'll have to be a number between 0 and 9
        ... which would apply of 'ichi' (1), but, as you point out, certainly not for 'jue' (10).

        UPDATE: My comment regarding windows command line was silly. I can always represent Unicode characters by \x(...), so, yes, you are right, it would have been easy to have written a short perl program to test it!
        -- 
        Ronald Fischer <ynnor@mm.st>
[reply]
[d/l]
[select]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom