this post was submitted on 11 Dec 2023
955 points (97.9% liked)

Science Memes

10348 readers
1691 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.

Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Sal@mander.xyz
fossilesque@mander.xyz
SciBot@mander.xyz
955
gatekeeping (mander.xyz)
submitted 9 months ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to c/science_memes@mander.xyz
104 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] morrowind@lemmy.ml 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I don't quite understand yours, why does it need parentheses? And requires the decimal point?

how about [0-9]+\.?[0-9]*

[–] dsemy@lemm.ee 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

The parens in my regex group part of the regex, so the following '?' makes the entire group optional.

Your regex matches (for example) '5.' as a number.

Mine is also slightly wrong, it matches a blank string as a number. Here's a better one:

[0-9]+\(\.[0-9]+\)?

[–] morrowind@lemmy.ml 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Your regex matches (for example) '5.' as a number

Yeah that's on purpose. That's often used in sciences to mark significant digits.

The thing I'm confused by in yours is you're escaping the parenthesis, so there need to be literal parenthesis in the matching number, or that's what it showed in the regex checker.

[–] dsemy@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago

Whether or not you need to escape parens depends on the regex implementation.