[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Robin Berjon wrote:
> Max Chappell wrote:
>
>> Another piece of advice is to use nested brackets such as:
>> "[a-zA-Z-[ABC]]" (Use any letters except AB or C).
>> Along these lines I've tried:
>> "[.-[NaN]]*" - far from working...
>
>
> Does something like (.-[Na])+ work? I'm unsure that . is a proper
> character class that's subject to substraction.
>
The type declaration is based upon xs:double, restricting
further by the use of pattern should mean the two patterns are ANDed
together. I was working
on a vague assumption that . works like a 'super' character
class for ANDed patterns.
I'm not convinced about the use of . either - However, since I
find regular expressions as much fun as pulling teeth, I thought I'd
give it a go..
>> This does not allow .00009 for example, so we'll have to make the reg
>> exp even more complicated.
>
>
> I believe I have one somewhere that's close to being good and that
> could exclude NaN. However it's several lines long (when wrapped) and
> last year it tended to crash validators. I can dig it up if you don't
> find a pleasant solution.
I may well take you up on that offer!
thanks
>
>
|
