3 ms·

the solution seems pretty easy. simply leave out the beginning/end-of-line assertions. [0-9]+|[A-Z]+ would suffice for that example. i agree that introducing ca

the solution seems pretty easy. simply leave out the beginning/end-of-line assertions. [0-9]+|[A-Z]+ would suffice for that example. i agree that introducing capture groups IS too early, but you can add the parentheses without mentioning capture groups, even if they do capture. grouping still has great value as a precedence indicator which is taught in gradeschool arithmetic. it's rather unfortunate that the syntax to capture is "(" while the less complex no-capture is "(?:", i'm not sure who thought that through, but here we are.

zedshaw 15y ago
Yes, I hate that (?:) syntax. Who the hell thought that crap up. But, I will point out that you attributed the error to NL/EOL assertion, when actually it was order of precedence of | being greater than $ and ^. It's a simple nearly 1-2 character mistake, not a "novice" mistake that discredits the entire book.
- leeoniya 15y ago
  yeah i apologize, perhaps i was a bit harsh. i did understand what the issue was and never claimed that it was the newline/EOL assertion itself. i said that your newline/EOL assertion is being treated as PART of the alteration, which is exactly what happens - yes because of pipe's higher operator precedence when no explicit grouping is defined. novice or not though, 2 misplaced chars in a regex can make the diff between a security feature and a security hole, in this case matching a plethora of inject-able, potentially malicious characters which appear nowhere in the regex, not even as a wildcard ".", i would never make the claim that a 2-char mistake which matches this far beyond its intent is a minor oversight in a real-world, public facing application - and isn't that the ultimate goal? the only issue in the context of a book for a regex beginner is that the regex gives the appearance of newline/EOL assertion hugging an alteration, but does something quite different. removing those assertions would clear things up for the better.

zedshaw 15y ago

Yes, I hate that (?:) syntax. Who the hell thought that crap up. But, I will point out that you attributed the error to NL/EOL assertion, when actually it was order of precedence of | being greater than $ and ^. It's a simple nearly 1-2 character mistake, not a "novice" mistake that discredits the entire book.

leeoniya 15y ago
yeah i apologize, perhaps i was a bit harsh. i did understand what the issue was and never claimed that it was the newline/EOL assertion itself. i said that your newline/EOL assertion is being treated as PART of the alteration, which is exactly what happens - yes because of pipe's higher operator precedence when no explicit grouping is defined. novice or not though, 2 misplaced chars in a regex can make the diff between a security feature and a security hole, in this case matching a plethora of inject-able, potentially malicious characters which appear nowhere in the regex, not even as a wildcard ".", i would never make the claim that a 2-char mistake which matches this far beyond its intent is a minor oversight in a real-world, public facing application - and isn't that the ultimate goal? the only issue in the context of a book for a regex beginner is that the regex gives the appearance of newline/EOL assertion hugging an alteration, but does something quite different. removing those assertions would clear things up for the better.