iso

does anyone have a good regex pattern for matching iso datetimes? ie: 2010-06-15T00:00:00 For the strict, full datetime, including milliseconds, per the W3C's take on the spec .: //-- Complete precision: /\d{4}-[01]\d-[0-3]\dT[0-2]\d:[0-5]\d:[0-5]\d\.\d+([+-][0-2]\d:[0-5]\d|Z)/ //-- No milliseconds: /\d{4}-[01]\d-[0-3]\dT[0-2]\d:[0-5]\d:[0-5]\d([+-][0-2]\d:[0-5]\d|Z)/ //-- No Seconds: /\d{4}-[01]\d-[0-3]\dT[0-2]\d:[0-5]\d([+-][0-2]\d:[0-5]\d|Z)/ //-- Putting it all together: /(\d{4}-[01]\d-[0-3]\dT[0-2]\d:[0-5]\d:[0-5]\d\.\d+([+-][0-2]\d:[0-5]\d|Z))|(\d{4}-[01]\d-[0-3]\dT[0-2]\d:[0-5]\d:[0-5]

As user Tony points out there's a [Note] in paragraph 1.3.12 of C++ standard saying permissible undefined behavior ranges from ignoring the situation completely with unpredictable results, to behaving during translation or program execution in a documented manner characteristic of the environment... Doesn't this contradict the definition of UB saying that ...this International Standard imposes no requirements ? I mean they say "no requirements" and then say "permissible UB" - right in the same paragraph. How should this note be interpreted? Does it indeed limit UB in any way? From §6.5.1 of

When recently answering another question , I discovered a problem with code like: int n; scanf ("%d", &n); With strtol , you can detect overflow because, in that case, the maximum value allowed is inserted into n and errno is set to indicate the overflow, as per C11 7.22.1.4 The strtol, strtoll, strtoul, and strtoull functions /8 : If the correct value is outside the range of representable values, LONG_MIN, LONG_MAX, LLONG_MIN, LLONG_MAX, ULONG_MAX, or ULLONG_MAX is returned (according to the return type and sign of the value, if any), and the value of the macro ERANGE is stored in errno.

I know that compilers use __STDC__ to indicate that a compiler is standard C and, from, there, you can use __STDC_VERSION__ to figure out which level of the standard you're using. I also know that C90 had no value, C90 amendment 1 had 199401L and C99 had 199901L . The latest C1x draft I have simply states it as 201ymmL and I'm assuming it was made a less "vague" value in the final standard. My guess is that it will be 201112L since that's when C11 was ratified but I'd like to be certain. I thought I could try using gcc -std=c1x but the version of gcc I'm running doesn't support that yet. Does

Is there an ISO standard address format? I can't seem to find one, and I'd like to know for object- and database-design purposes. (One interesting document that shows a bunch of formats is this: http://www.bitboost.com/ref/international-address-formats.html , but it's insane!) Jonathan Leffler No; each country defines its own standard. There have been a number of questions about this in times past, including: Best practices for storing postal addresses in an RDBMS Is there a common street address database design for all addresses of the world The second of those itself has references to a