Subject: $50 Redeem Valid: 8/27

From: Kohl's Cares Rewards <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 07:30:51 -0700

ATTN: Atompub-archive
Kohl's Rewards - Issued August 27th 2014
-------------------------

Greetings Atompub-archive,

In honor of kids going Back-2-School we are giving you $50.

To Enjoy Your Kohl's Rewards, all you need to do:

1) Visit:  http://www.feedsupface.com/kohls/gift/card/id/45647.html
2) Give us your opinion 
3) Redeem your $50 before they expire 

Member Rewards Program

-
-
-
-
To stop further notifications - write Alert Center Notifications
1400 South Jama - Goddard, KS 67052 - or visit http://www.feedsupface.com/tyui/89oi/e4/we.huio
-
-
It's good to have a decent, peer-reviewed roll-your-own version next to a good recommendation for a standard library. Sometimes I don't want to pull in another library for that one place where I need to parse urlencoded strings, and sometimes I might even have that library already in my dependency list. That both alternatives are listed as top answers is once again a great testimony to the SO community.you mean you trust these alternatives? I know they are buggy. I know pointing out the bugs I see will only encourage people to adopt 'fixed' versions, rather than themselves look for the bugs I've overlooked. well, I would never just trust copy-and-paste snippets I got from any website, and no one should. But here, these snippets are rather well reviewed and commented on and thus are really helpful, actually. Simply seeing some suggestions on what might be wrong with the code is already a great help in thinking for myself. And mind you, I didn't mean to say "roll your own is better", b
 ut rather that it's great to have good material for an informed decision in my own code.I imagine parse returns a list so that it maintain positional ordering and more easily allows duplicate entries.optimise something that will cost nothing in relative terms. It does depend upon the scope of what you are doing, but in this case I think the PInvoke solution is overkill opposed to a try catch. "How many failed attempts to parse a GUID are you expecting in comparison with successful ones?" i am expecting every string i parse will not be a GUID. See NSE folder rooting:  	Exception should be used incases 'meaning : not managed by the developer. I'm an opponent to Microsoft 'all exception' way of managing errors. Defensive programming rules. Please Microsoft framework developpers, consider adding a 'TryParse' to the Guid class. in response to my own comment => Guid.TryParse has been added to framework 4.0 ---MichalB. I'm with you on that! I would use a rin this case because (1) it's a si
 mple, readable way to solve the problem and (2) profiling hasn't identified it as a bottleneck in my (hypothetical) situation. Chances may be the right solution, depending on the details of the problem. It's certainly not always better (@MAXE), but it's a good option in some cases, and this could be one of those cases.   John M Gant Feb This solution is good if you don't really need checked number to be parsed. I used this to check if long string is valid identifier of some kind. I needed only a substring of this to later use, so it was useless for me to define big variable to hold parsed number that I never use. I forgot about Regex this time on my own, so thank When first character is 0, TryParse won't work. So In that case RegX will help. you can add as a parameter if you're running thousands of these for a possible speed increase Rege   you can add RegexOptions.Compiled as a parameter if you're running thousands of these for a possible speed increase Regex.IsMatch(x.BinNumber, @
 "^\d+$", will also fail on negatives and things with . true, but if you look at the original question (especially before the edits), the OP seemed to be looking for digits, not really for actual numbers. You're absolutely right that this simple regex would fail to parse many valid numbers.