Re: regexp novice

"Stuart Dallas" <stuart@3ft9.com> wrote in message news:79538829-BFC4-43A4-A413-72247B145CDC@3ft9.com... On 18 May 2012, at 14:41, Jim Giner wrote: > "Stuart Dallas" <stuart@3ft9.com> wrote in message > news:CC22E241-C1DF-48E9-BF06-8A638A356459@3ft9.com... >> On 18 May 2012, at 14:32, Jim Giner wrote: >> >>> OK - I don't yet understand how this works, but it seems to work for >>> almost >>> all cases. The one erroneous result I get is from a value of 0040 >>> (which >>> I >>> convert to 00:40 before hitting the regexp). It comes thru as Ok. If >>> you >>> have a fix for that I'd appreciate it - otherwise I'll have to devote >>> some >>> book-time to mastering this string and come up with a fix myself. >> >> Based on your requirements, 00:40 is completely valid. Why do you think >> it >> should be invalid? >> > Don't know how you write the time, but I've never used a time of 00:40. > Yes, I realize that my shorthand time string is missing a key ingredient > of > am/pm, but 12:40 would be the time in my mind regardless of the status of > the sun. In my speccific use of this code, all times would be 'daylight' > times so 40 minutes after minute would be a) not practical and b) still > not > a recognized time in a 12-hour format. Yes - in 24-hour formats, 00:40 is > correct, but my initial post did reference my need of a 12-hour format > solution. Sounds daft to me, but they're your requirements. The "fix" is simple… ( 0 <= (int) $m[1] && 12 >= (int) $m[1] ) && becomes ( 1 <= (int) $m[1] && 12 >= (int) $m[1] ) && -Stuart -- Stuart Dallas 3ft9 Ltd http://3ft9.com/= Daft is a little harsh. :) 00:40 is just not a time value that is generally accepted. As for you patch thought - THAT is generally accepted. Works great now. Thank you. Now all I have to do is read up on this stuff so I can understand how it works. But first - golf!