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.
[0-9]*\.?[0-9]*edit: ok no empty strings
[0-9]+\.?[0-9]*That regex implies “” is a number
If I had a nickel for every time that happened I’d have “” nickels.
I didn’t realize ‘.’ is a number.
\([0-9]+\.[0-9]\)?[0-9]*is more accurate I think.I don’t quite understand yours, why does it need parentheses? And requires the decimal point?
how about
[0-9]+\.?[0-9]*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]+\(\.[0-9]+\)?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.
Whether or not you need to escape parens depends on the regex implementation.
yeah but by Cantor’s diagonal argument, you still wouldn’t be listing all the real numbers
well sure, if you want to be fancy. i was speaking in layman terms for the rest of the world.
regex for the win.
What about imaginary numbers?
[0-9]+\.?[0-9]*[ij]?I’m not making one for mixed numbers