a bit over-the-top...but you see how oppinions of "professionals" have
rippling effects as seen by the op's change in attitude about regex as a
viable option for validating email address patterns. that's probably why i
came on so strong when herf posted his original non-sense.
oh well, challenge still stands. ;^)
| Oh wow man.......
|
|
|
| | > | Well... I mean making my own function for checking that email address
| > looks
| > | like correct returning true or false, but may not be really existing
| > | email-address anyway. Function might check for example one '@' sign
| > exists
| > | somewhere in the middle of address, and after that is at least one dot
| > but
| > | not as a last character... and so on...
| >
| > no, you can't know if the user account actually exists but there are
| > standards (rfc 2822 for example) that let you know if the address
supplied
| >
| > conforms to a valid address. i doubt you've explored the rfcs at all
based
| >
| > on your "and so on..." naive explanation of what your function might do.
| >
| > there are a lot more rules than that!
| >
| > | Ofcourse user's own sense is needed with this. I have to think this
| > more...
| >
| > no, this is not subjective validation. there are specific rules applied
to
| >
| > internet communication including the format of an email address. one's
| > "own
| > sense" should be used in creating a function that follows these rules
when
| >
| > validating information that is preported to be an email address.
| >
| > | Regular expressions are too terrible to use!
| >
| > apply "i have to think this more..." to "regular expressions are too
| > terrible to use!". people who damn regular expressions simply don't know
| > how
| > to use them much less write them...statements made from ignorance. if
you
| >
| > can show me an rfc compliant email validation function that you or
anyone
| >
| > else wrote that is shorter, quicker, or more maintainable than the two
| > regular expressions given in response to the op's question, i'll gladly
| > shut
| > up. until then, keep you non-sensical, inexperienced opinions to
| > yourself...especially when the truth of the matter is not "regular
| > expressions are too terrible to use" but more likely that "you are too
| > terrible at using regular expressions"!
|
