> if you are only working with ASCII: use the regex `_A-Za-z[_A-Za-z0-9]*`

Is that better than the inPattern way?

Hello Saaa,

>> if you are only working with ASCII: use the regex
>> `_A-Za-z[_A-Za-z0-9]*`
>> 
> Is that better than the inPattern way?
> 

yes, it correctly rejects numbers at the start and should be faster as well.

> Hello Saaa,
>
>>> if you are only working with ASCII: use the regex `_A-Za-z[_A-Za-z0-9]*`
>>>
>> Is that better than the inPattern way?
>>
>
> yes, it correctly rejects numbers at the start and should be faster as well.

Of course, should have looked longer at the regex line, thanks!

BCS wrote:
> Hello Saaa,
> 
>>> You have to write it yourself. Here's a good starting point:
>>> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/lex.html#identifier
>>>
>> Yes, that was my starting point and it seemed quite complex, thus my
>> question :)
>> I think I'll stay with my simple check for now as it isn't really
>> necessary
>> to be as strict as D's identifiers.
>> Just thought that if there was an easy check I'd implement that.
>> Thanks anyways everybody.
> 
> if you are only working with ASCII: use the regex `_A-Za-z[_A-Za-z0-9]*`

Isn't there an isUniAlpha function in both Phoboses and in Tango?

BCS wrote:
> Hello Saaa,
> 
>>> You have to write it yourself. Here's a good starting point: http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/lex.html#identifier
>>>
>> Yes, that was my starting point and it seemed quite complex, thus my
>> question :)
>> I think I'll stay with my simple check for now as it isn't really
>> necessary
>> to be as strict as D's identifiers.
>> Just thought that if there was an easy check I'd implement that.
>> Thanks anyways everybody.
> 
> if you are only working with ASCII: use the regex `_A-Za-z[_A-Za-z0-9]*`
> 
	Shouldn't that be "[_A-Za-z][_A-Za-z0-9]*"?

		Jerome
-- 
mailto:jeberger@free.fr
http://jeberger.free.fr
Jabber: jeberger@jabber.fr

Reply to Jérôme,

> BCS wrote:
> 
>> Hello Saaa,
>> 
>>>> You have to write it yourself. Here's a good starting point:
>>>> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/lex.html#identifier
>>>> 
>>> Yes, that was my starting point and it seemed quite complex, thus my
>>> question :)
>>> I think I'll stay with my simple check for now as it isn't really
>>> necessary
>>> to be as strict as D's identifiers.
>>> Just thought that if there was an easy check I'd implement that.
>>> Thanks anyways everybody.
>> if you are only working with ASCII: use the regex
>> `_A-Za-z[_A-Za-z0-9]*`
>> 
> Shouldn't that be "[_A-Za-z][_A-Za-z0-9]*"?
> 
> Jerome
> 

Oops :(