Comments by MirageCoder

MirageCoder 25-Feb-13 10:22am View

Sergey, thanks for your reply.

I hate using the designer for the reasons you've just pointed out; the code is just an example. I'm actually on your side when it comes down to manual creation of generic web forms (user) controls. But that's a different subject.

MirageCoder 25-Feb-13 10:16am View

OriginalGriff, thanks for your reply.

I think I kindof agree; it's half a discussion starter / half a question. I was curious about a shorter construction so that was my initial thought. I'll consider using the forum next time; I'm new to posting here.

Edit: considering your argument on the construct, I hadn't put thought into 'var' and abstract classes. That's the reason I was looking for. Now I actually feel silly for thinking such a construct would be acceptable and logical.

MirageCoder 4-Feb-13 8:46am View

Just to be sure that I have learned something today, if I'm not mistaken the syntax is as follows:

(?=.*([a-z].*?){3,})

Look ahead (?=) in any character in a given range regardless of its length (.*) and find an instance of a lowercase character (([a-z]) regardless of which one and what position it's at (.*?)). Repeat the same process at least three times ({3,}). Correct, right?

MirageCoder 4-Feb-13 8:36am View

Agreed. But thanks for lending a hand anyways!

MirageCoder 4-Feb-13 8:29am View

Gotcha, I accidentally copy + pasted the '.' at the end of your expression. Zoltán, thank you very much for your assistance. I owe you one!

Zoltán, can you slap your expression in your initial solution post? I'll mark it as 'Accepted' then!

MirageCoder 4-Feb-13 8:18am View

Hello Zoltan, I tried a similar expression earlier today but I couldn't get it to work. I tried your expression and tested it in multiple tools but unfortunately no luck. (But I'm doubting my implementation more than your solution) If the string Aa1!Bb2@Cc3# can be matched then it will be exactly what I need.

MirageCoder 4-Feb-13 7:47am View

Hello Zoltán, thanks for your reply. Coincidentally I stumbled across the same article before I posted my question but I can't find the solution when it comes to validating minimum amounts of characters, just testing on whether they are present or not.

You're making valid points on stronger password validation such as the prevention of sequence repetitions, but those are irrelevant to the client as of now. Thank you for thinking ahead though!

MirageCoder 4-Feb-13 7:31am View

Manfred, thank you for your response. I'm definitely not crafty in RegEx (I should chalk it on my 2013 new years resolution list) and it's possible I'm thinking of it differently as a tool. Iterating over the characters has definitely crossed my mind but it felt like reinventing the wheel. I'll reconsider that option.

MirageCoder 28-Jan-13 7:41am View

Edo, thank you very much.

MirageCoder 28-Jan-13 7:30am View

Thanks for the advice Edo, that is definitely something I haven't put any thought into and it justifies my doubts about this implementation style in the first place. I'm going to have to look for a different course of action.

Regardless of the fact that it seems to make sense, can you cite an official source for me where this is explicitly stated?

MirageCoder 28-Jan-13 7:23am View

Thanks for your reply, Chill60. So you're saying that I should implement IDisposable, implement the 'myInt'-retrieval in the Dispose()-method, and call the Dispose()-method in the class destructor?

Comments by MirageCoder (Top 11 by date)