Bridger Dyson-Smith wrote:
wow, that is a pretty nice regex :).
Indeed, I found that, too! :-)
coverage wrong, isn't the '?' a reluctant quantifier - given two choices it will always match the shorter choice? Or does the hash/octothorp give extra significance to the '?' quantifier?
I found https://www.regular-expressions.info/reference.html to be a brilliant and most complete resource for reference. It even covers the [XSD](https://www.regular-expressions.info/xml.html) and [XPath](https://www.regular-expressions.info/xpath.html) regular expressions.
And while this may sound as advertisement, which it is not, the site *is* just *that* good, for a little tip, around 5 dollars, you can download the whole website as formatted PDF. Best regex reference I read, so far. The guy really knows this stuff and is very passionated about it.
Now, if you go to https://www.regular-expressions.info/floatingpoint.html , you will see a very similar problem to ours.
And since I am already in recommendation mode, http://regex101.com. Just saying... Sadly, it has no XPath coverage. Oh, and also http://rexegg.com, which is less referential, but more tutorial/anectodical.