On top of that, [0-9]+ matches one or more digits and ()? matches the previous token zero or one times, so the whole thing combines to zero or more digits, which is just [0-9]*. They’re even bad at regex.
Comment on Hey looky! I'm on a list a just learned about three minutes ago!
SeductiveTortoise@piefed.social 1 day ago
lol, what did this person do to receive such hate? 😂
^ghosttree([0-9]+)?$
kkj@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
SeductiveTortoise@piefed.social 1 day ago
Fucking up regex is a sacred tradition!
cockmushroom@reddthat.com 1 day ago
No it’s not
SeductiveTortoise@piefed.social 1 day ago
OK, this person nailed it on the first try. But besides them, I know nobody who didn’t fuck them up once or twice.
Hoimo@ani.social 1 day ago
It’s a general approach to names with numbers at the end, the list is full of those. I’m almost more interested in the more specific patterns like
name(69)+, because was there an alt name6969 he wanted to block but an unrelated name67 he wanted to avoid?SeductiveTortoise@piefed.social 1 day ago
I know, and I suspect the name came up more than once. But if I implemented some kind of algorithm to add people to the list based on posting behaviour, I wouldn’t put in the effort to have it implement a regex for “this guy and whatever number they added”.
To me this looks like he wrote the list by hand. Which is even weirder.
spicehoarder@lemmy.zip 10 hours ago
I just don’t get why he’s insisting on a regex for this. Surely filtering comments out based on sentiment scoring would yield a better experience.
ghosttree57@lemmy.ca 20 hours ago
¯\_(ツ)_/¯