Java validating strings for digits cheating spouse dating profile locator
Also it will reject any number with a leading ' ' An alternative which avoids these two minor problems is We can try replacing all the numbers from the given string with ("") ie blank space and if after that the length of the string is zero then we can say that given string contains only numbers.[If you found this answer helpful then please do consider up voting it] Example: is Parsable(Integer.class, "11"); is Parsable(Double.class, "11.11"); Object date Formater = new G 'at' HH:mm:ss z"); is Parsable(date Formater, "20 AD at PDT"); parameter, then looks through the methods of the parent's class * followed by subsequent ancestors, using the first method that matches the criteria specified * above.I was able to solve this by using this following code provided by a comment on this question. What I used that worked came from the first comment.
- e E public static boolean is Number(String s) // is type of number public static boolean is Integer(String s) public static boolean is Numeric(String s) var re = new Reg Exp("^-? That doesn't explain why it always showed up as lengthier for me though if it somehow is optimized out... As a note: By lengthier, I mean running the test for 10000000 iterations, and running that program multiple times (10x ) always showed it to be slower.EDIT: Updated a test for Digit() Craig TP's regular expression (shown above) produces some false positives. "23y4" will be counted as a number because '.' matches any character not the decimal point.If you need to handle longer strings of numbers, both Big Integer and Big Decimal sport constructors that accept Strings.Any of these will throw a Number Format Exception if you try to pass it a non-number (integral or decimal, based on the one you choose, of course).
Search for java validating strings for digits:
If you don't mind the (extremely) minor performance hit--which is probably no worse than doing a regex match--use Integer.parse Int() or Double.parse Double().