[noxer]

> Instead, use a range negation, like [^%] if you know the % character won’t show up. It doesn’t hurt to be a little more explicit.

This is absolutely horrible, pattern are fairly readable if they follow the syntax logic. Matching "everything but that random character that will not appear" is absurd. Also the idea that a . (dot) behaves arbitrary in different languages shows a sever lack up understanding about regex syntax. Ofc you can't write a proper pattern if you don't know which syntax is used. If anything you would force override the behavior of the . (dot) with the appropriate flag to ensure it works the same with different compatible regex engines.

[strunz]

Agreed, I wanted to write the whole article off after that suggestion. That is such a terrible anti pattern that would confuse everyone who looked at it, even people with decades of experience.