«

Hi. I have an assignment to do some validating of a form using
javascript and mostly the search() method. I'm having problems
getting a positive validation for phone numbers like "123-456-7890"
and "123.456.7890" but not like "123.456-7890". The regular
expression I'm using now is something like this:
ok = pn.search(/(^\d{3}-\d{3}-\d{4}$)|(^\d{3}.\d{3}.\d{4}$)/);
Which to me looks like it SHOULD do what I want it to and not come
back with an ok=0 for a phone number using both hyphens and periods.
Please help.

Ward Cleaver wrote:

> ok = pn.search(/(^\d{3}-\d{3}-\d{4}$)|(^\d{3}.\d{3}.\d{4}$)/);

I'm guessing...

(/(^\d{3}(-|.)\d{3}(-|.)\d{4}$)/)

should do the trick for all cases.

You could also use:

(/((\d{3}(-|.)){2}\d{4}$)/)

but that will produce +ve values if extra characters are
added to the front of the test string - only zero (0) will
be a correct result or any non-zero value a fail. For the
sake of saving a few characters, I don't think it's worth
it.

Cheers.

On 28 Sep 2004 15:45:51 -0700, Ward Cleaver <> wrote:

> Hi. I have an assignment

If you mean an educational course assignment, you're probably required to
mention that you received help.

> to do some validating of a form using javascript and mostly the search()
> method.

String.prototype.search is generally unsuitable for validation. If you
want to assert that a string matches a pattern, use RegExp.prototype.test:

/<pattern>/.test(<string>)

which returns true for a match. The search method returns the position
where a match was found.

> I'm having problems getting a positive validation for phone numbers like
> "123-456-7890" and "123.456.7890" but not like "123.456-7890". The
> regular expression I'm using now is something like this:
> ok = pn.search(/(^\d{3}-\d{3}-\d{4}$)|(^\d{3}.\d{3}.\d{4}$)/);

An unescaped dot (period) matches *any* character (except line
terminators). A literal dot needs to written with a backslash prefix.

> Which to me looks like it SHOULD do what I want it to and not come back
> with an ok=0 for a phone number using both hyphens and periods.
> Please help.

Though I recommended the test method, I'd probably use
RegExp.prototype.exec so I could check that the separators match:

var r = /^\d{3}([.-])\d{3}([.-])\d{4}$/.exec(pn);

/* If the string didn't match, r will be null.
* If it did match, r will be an array with element
* 0 containing the match
* 1 containing the first remembered match (marked with
* parentheses)
* 2 containing the second remembered match
*/
if(r && (r[1] == r[2])) {
// Pattern matched and the separators are equal.
}

Good luck,
Mike

--
Michael Winter
Replace ".invalid" with ".uk" to reply by e-mail.

JRS: In article < >,
dated Tue, 28 Sep 2004 15:45:51, seen in news:comp.lang.javascript, Ward
Cleaver <> posted :
> I have an assignment to do some validating of a form using
>javascript and mostly the search() method. I'm having problems
>getting a positive validation for phone numbers like "123-456-7890"
>and "123.456.7890" but not like "123.456-7890". The regular
>expression I'm using now is something like this:
>ok = pn.search(/(^\d{3}-\d{3}-\d{4}$)|(^\d{3}.\d{3}.\d{4}$)/);
>Which to me looks like it SHOULD do what I want it to and not come
>back with an ok=0 for a phone number using both hyphens and periods.


Dot matches any character; use \. . Testing only with more-or-less
valid data is a distressingly common mistake; a test with a non-allowed
first separator would have given a clue. Build up such expressions in
small stages, testing as you go.

Search returns a number; to get a Boolean for OK, use test.

OK = /^(\d\d\d)([-\.])(\d\d\d)\2(\d\d\d\d)$/.test(pn)

Be aware that by using that format only you exclude many of the
telephones in North America and elsewhere.

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 IE 4 ©
<URL:http://www.jibbering.com/faq/> JL/RC: FAQ of news:comp.lang.javascript
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/js-index.htm> jscr maths, dates, sources.
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> TP/BP/Delphi/jscr/&c, FAQ items, links.

"Michael Winter" wrote:
<...>
>
> Though I recommended the test method, I'd probably use
> RegExp.prototype.exec so I could check that the separators match:
>
> var r = /^\d{3}([.-])\d{3}([.-])\d{4}$/.exec(pn);
>
> /* If the string didn't match, r will be null.
> * If it did match, r will be an array with element
> * 0 containing the match
> * 1 containing the first remembered match (marked with
> * parentheses)
> * 2 containing the second remembered match
> */
> if(r && (r[1] == r[2])) {
> // Pattern matched and the separators are equal.
> }
>

Alternatively, including a backreference in the regular expression
would allow use of the preferred test method, e.g.:

if ( /^\d{3}([-.])\d{3}\1\d{4}$/.test(pn) ) {
// Pattern matched and the separators are equal.
}

../rh

On 29 Sep 2004 09:20:10 -0700, rh <> wrote:

[snip]

> Alternatively, including a backreference in the regular expression would
> allow use of the preferred test method, e.g.:

I didn't know they existed as an ECMA-262 conformant pattern but I have
just found it (section 15.10.2.11). How well supported are they?

Thanks,
Mike

--
Michael Winter
Replace ".invalid" with ".uk" to reply by e-mail.

"Michael Winter" <> wrote in message news:<opse3j52gcx13kvk@atlantis>...
> On 29 Sep 2004 09:20:10 -0700, rh <> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > Alternatively, including a backreference in the regular expression would
> > allow use of the preferred test method, e.g.:
>
> I didn't know they existed as an ECMA-262 conformant pattern but I have
> just found it (section 15.10.2.11). How well supported are they?
>

RegExp backreferences were present in v1.2. I believe it's possible to
use said same with gay abandon .

../rh