top | item 39767233 (no title) Yujf | 1 year ago Why not? Common characters are easier to type and presumbly if you are using regex on a unicode string they might include these special characters anyway so what have you gained? discuss order hn newest amelius|1 year ago In theory yes, in practice no.What you have gained is that the regex is now much easier to read. LK5ZJwMwgBbHuVI|1 year ago > In theory yes, in practice no.That's like "in theory we need 4 bytes to represent Unicode, but in practice 3 bytes is fine" (glances at universally-maligned utf8mb3) load replies (1) knome|1 year ago It's easy to read now.
amelius|1 year ago In theory yes, in practice no.What you have gained is that the regex is now much easier to read. LK5ZJwMwgBbHuVI|1 year ago > In theory yes, in practice no.That's like "in theory we need 4 bytes to represent Unicode, but in practice 3 bytes is fine" (glances at universally-maligned utf8mb3) load replies (1) knome|1 year ago It's easy to read now.
LK5ZJwMwgBbHuVI|1 year ago > In theory yes, in practice no.That's like "in theory we need 4 bytes to represent Unicode, but in practice 3 bytes is fine" (glances at universally-maligned utf8mb3) load replies (1)
amelius|1 year ago
What you have gained is that the regex is now much easier to read.
LK5ZJwMwgBbHuVI|1 year ago
That's like "in theory we need 4 bytes to represent Unicode, but in practice 3 bytes is fine" (glances at universally-maligned utf8mb3)
knome|1 year ago