General

Re: Infopath claims my regex is not valid pattern but it's straight from a book. Why?

IceThatJaw — Fri, 24 Aug 2012 09:19:00 GMT

Nice catch. I updated the regex to also handle a decimal format.

[\(.]?[2-9]\d\d[\).]?[ \-]?[2-9]\d\d[\-.]\d{4}

Matches:

200-200-0000

(200)200-0000

(200) 200-0000

200.200.0000

Thanks and everyone should definitely use this expression rather than the built in one for US phone numbers.

Thanks.

Re: Infopath claims my regex is not valid pattern but it's straight from a book. Why?

Jimmy — Fri, 24 Aug 2012 06:47:29 GMT

Looks like you need to use a backslash before hyphens. Perhaps the people who designed this regex parser thought it would be better that way because hyphens sometimes have a semantic meaning in regular expressions.

Infopath claims my regex is not valid pattern but it's straight from a book. Why?

IceThatJaw — Fri, 24 Aug 2012 00:46:08 GMT

I don't particularly like the built in phone number regex because it only matches one format. I have a niftly regex handbook with a great one for US phone numbers. Regex = \(?[2-9]\d\d\)?[ -]?[2-9]\d\d-\d{4}

This allows for 000-000-0000, (000) 000-0000, and (000)000-0000.

When I make a rule and do a match based on this custom pattern it says it's not a valid pattern when I try to enter it. Any ideas?